From iza at anr.org Mon Sep 1 02:41:38 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:41:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note Message-ID: Dear all, I have started to take some notes online of the "Beyond NETmundial" now started. It's sketchy, but hope to help. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWvgqff4dWwwBNS9XcsFy1w_RlsQvezI2mmZkVYQRFM/edit Somehow, realtime text capturing is not working, now. I made it open to everyone who knows the link below, to edit. Please join if you are in the same room. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Mon Sep 1 02:54:41 2014 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 06:54:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Grazie Izumi, i’ll come to hug you later…. ☺ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: lundi 1 septembre 2014 09:42 To: governance Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note Dear all, I have started to take some notes online of the "Beyond NETmundial" now started. It's sketchy, but hope to help. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWvgqff4dWwwBNS9XcsFy1w_RlsQvezI2mmZkVYQRFM/edit Somehow, realtime text capturing is not working, now. I made it open to everyone who knows the link below, to edit. Please join if you are in the same room. izumi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Sep 1 04:33:30 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:33:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent Message-ID: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Hi all, at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. jeanette P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 1 03:32:16 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:32:16 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I fully support this idea. One Problem - which probably has to be touched by the Statement - would be the future relationship to UNDESA and the status of the MAG. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 10:33 An: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent Hi all, at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. jeanette P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 03:35:36 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 03:35:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Public Knowledge supports. On Sep 1, 2014 10:29 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > Hi all, > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its > mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to > draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community > and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement > too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to > coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive > statement.) > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an > idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with > this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil > society. > > jeanette > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 03:35:43 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:35:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Thanks Jeanette I think its a welcome development for us all to make a sustained effort at getting multistakeholder across board, especially in government where each tenure display a new or varied understanding of what IGF is all about and should be. Regards Remmy Nweke On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its > mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to > draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community > and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement > too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to > coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive > statement.) > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an > idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with > this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil > society. > > jeanette > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014< http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 03:39:52 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:39:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2964D218-6A04-4727-99BF-0B3FA82D754E@gmail.com> Definitely support Bill On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > I fully support this idea. One Problem - which probably has to be touched by the Statement - would be the future relationship to UNDESA and the status of the MAG. > > > Wolfgang > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann > Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 10:33 > An: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent > > Hi all, > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing > its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able > to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical > community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a > statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days > available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an > all inclusive statement.) > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only > an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, > with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your > opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > support in civil society. > > jeanette > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Mon Sep 1 03:41:37 2014 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:41:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Agreed. If there are additional /different things that we want to say as CS, we could also draft our own letter if needed. But my understanding is that we had agreed to keep it pretty simple, so sounds good and more effective. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access | accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Public Knowledge supports. > On Sep 1, 2014 10:29 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that >> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its >> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >> >> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other >> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to >> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community >> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement >> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to >> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive >> statement.) >> >> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only >> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, >> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your >> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >> support in civil society. >> >> jeanette >> >> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email >> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Mon Sep 1 03:51:24 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lorena_Jaume-Palas=ED?=) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:51:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent Message-ID: <7r2hgr6a6ncwwukrnjc7wsgg.1409557884346@email.android.com> Fully support the idea! Lorena  Von Samsung Galaxy Note gesendetJeanette Hofmann hat geschrieben:Hi all, at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. jeanette P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Sep 1 03:53:39 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 04:53:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Agree. At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will be implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia: a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them." We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years." 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. best joana On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me > on to support as I can. > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: > > > > Hi all, > > > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its > mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to > draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community > and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement > too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to > coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive > statement.) > > > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only > an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, > with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your > opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > support in civil society. > > > > jeanette > > > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From crizalez at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 04:12:41 2014 From: crizalez at gmail.com (Cristiana Gonzalez) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:12:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: +1 Also from yesterday BB meeting someone said that "UN space and global IGF keep discussions in public space". 2014-09-01 10:53 GMT+03:00 Joana Varon : > Agree. > > At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: > > "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working > group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will > be > implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia: > a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative > ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy > options; > b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, > including > through a broadened donor base, is essential; > d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions > between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both > long > standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the > identification of > possible ways to address them." > > We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a > permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of > 5 or 10 years." > > 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. > > best > > joana > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé > wrote: > >> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me >> on to support as I can. >> >> _ >> João Carlos Caribé >> (021) 8761 1967 >> (021) 4042 7727 >> Skype joaocaribe >> Enviado via iPad >> >> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement >> that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing >> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >> > >> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other >> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to >> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community >> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement >> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to >> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive >> statement.) >> > >> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only >> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, >> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your >> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >> support in civil society. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email >> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Sep 1 04:51:03 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:51:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20140901085101.GA28527@tarvainen.info> +1 On Sep 01 08:31, Andrew Puddephatt (andrew at gp-digital.org) wrote: > i would support such an initiative > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > > > > On 1 September 2014 09:33, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its > > mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to > > draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community > > and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement > > too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to > > coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive > > statement.) > > > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an > > idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with > > this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil > > society. > > > > jeanette > > > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 05:10:58 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 05:10:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: This suggestion was made this morning. I am passing it on to the list for comment. This needs an URGENT response. Thank you Deirdre ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeanette Hofmann Date: 1 September 2014 04:33 Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent To: Best Bits , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Hi all, at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. jeanette P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Mon Sep 1 05:16:12 2014 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:16:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility Message-ID: Dear all (apologies for cross posting), I would like to invite you to attend the inaugural meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility that will take place from 14:30 to 16:00, on Thursday, September 4th. For those of you who are not able to attend in person, please note that remote participation will be available. The meeting will be introduced by to keynotes delivered by: • Mr Jan Kleijssen, Director, Information Society and Action against Crime, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Council of Europe • Ms Rebecca MacKinnon, Director of the Ranking Digital Rights project at New America Foundation Subsequently, we will engage in an open discussion to identify the key elements that will distinguish the work of the DC PR from existing initiatives on platform responsibility, and to jointly delineate a DC PR roadmap. Therefore, this meeting should be considered as a “Birds of a feather session” allowing all interested individuals to jointly plan the future works of the DC PR. The DC PR roadmap will be instrumental to plan the future activities of the DC PR members aimed at the elaboration of model contractual provisions, which will provide a reference for effective protection of specific human rights through online platforms’ terms of service. All the attendees will be encouraged to actively participate to the debate, providing their inputs to the definition of the DC PR roadmap. The discussion will be co-moderated by: Mr Luca Belli, Council of Europe & Université Paris 2 Mr Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University & CTS/ FGV Rio Ms Primavera De Filippi CNRS & Berkman Center for Internet and Society (remote moderator) We hope to see as many of you as possible! Best wishes, Luca, Nicolo and Primavera _______________________________________________ DCPR mailing list DCPR at lists.platformresponsibility.info http://lists.platformresponsibility.info/listinfo/dcpr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 05:18:47 2014 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:18:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Invitation_to_join_Workshop_196_=22IGF_=26?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Enhanced_Cooperation=2C_Parallel_Tracks_or_Connected=22_-_Tues?= =?UTF-8?Q?day_September_2=2C_2014=2C_11=3A00_am_=E2=80=93_12=3A30_pm=2C_W?= =?UTF-8?Q?orkshop_Room_03_=28Rumeli_-1_Floor_/_Room_1=29?= Message-ID: Dear Colleagues & IGF Participants: You are cordially invited to join us and participate in Workshop 196 " IGF & Enhanced Cooperation, Parallel Tracks or Connected" organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society. The Workshop dates and Venue are: Date : Tuesday September 2, 2014 Time : 11:00 am – 12:30 pm Venue. : Workshop Room 03 (Rumeli -1 Floor / Room 1) The Agenda of the workshop: - Mr. Qusai AlShatti Background on Workshop Topic & Panelists Introduction - Miss Désirée Miloshevic Multistakeholder Engagement in Enhanced Cooperation process - Mr. Ayman El-Sherbiny The Role on Intergovernmental organizations in Enhanced Cooperation - Mr. Peter Major Role and Ourcome of the Workgroup on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) - Mr. Carlos A. Afonso The View of Civil Society on the Enhanced Cooperation Process - Mr. Faycal Bayouli Tunisia Experience in Enhanced Cooperation and the WGEC - Ms. Marilyn Cade The View of The Private Sector on the Enhanced Cooperation Process Workshop Participants, panelists and Remote Participants : Interactive Discussion Summary & Closing Remarks. Find attached with this email the workshop brochure. Looking forward to see you all with us in the workshop. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lnalwoga at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 05:47:07 2014 From: lnalwoga at gmail.com (Lillian Nalwoga) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:47:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2014 Remote participation Message-ID: Dear all, Remote participation for the 9th IGF 2014 taking place in Istanbul is now available. Check out the details here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ For those on social media, you will find this helpful.. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2014-social-media Also do not forget to follow these workshops with panelists from Africa. A list has been developed here for your reference ... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1oaZHPLIvkZMG1MV2VHVU9QMGc/edit?usp=sharing Regards, Lillian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Mon Sep 1 06:26:26 2014 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:26:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1409567186.99281.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> this idea is very interesting and is justified by the fact that it is now that in most African countries, governments and the private sectors are beginning to understand the relevance of that platform. The idea is even a support Reflective strongly on the form of the multi-stakeholder approach that can take into account the concerns of users of internet services. Baudouin COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 Le Lundi 1 septembre 2014 9h36, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit : I fully support this idea. One Problem - which probably has to be touched by the Statement - would be the future relationship to UNDESA and the status of the MAG. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 10:33 An: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent Hi all, at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. jeanette P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 06:36:52 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:36:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi all: Jeanette, your post has come through onto the IGC list as far as I can see. To respond to the whole thread so far, I think a simple call for permanency would be weak. Doesn't the NETmundial declaration already talk about strengthening IGF? So at the very least, a multistakeholder call would have to include permanent IGF with strengthened support. And unless this is threat to maintaining cohesion across stakeholder groups which might be willing to support such call, I'd go as far as introducing language along the lines of what Anne Jellema proposes (expanded, stable, predictable funding that is transparently accounted for.) If there are stakeholders who are against the latter language, or if there are broader points (as alluded to earlier) which are beyond the above then we'll need to have two statements. But the minimum in my view, even for a multistakeholder call, would have to be for a permanent IGF with strengthened and sustainable support. Mawaki On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its > mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to > draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community > and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement > too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to > coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive > statement.) > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an > idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with > this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil > society. > > jeanette > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Sep 1 06:46:09 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 06:46:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum underway in Istanbul Message-ID: This runs all the way through til Friday. ISOC has produced its own schedule at http://www.internetsociety.org/events/internet-society-internet-governance-forum-2014%20 I will send out occasional further reminders of individual sessions. joly posted: " The 9th annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is taking place in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-5 September 2014. The overarching theme for the meeting is: "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance". There are live webcasts from th" [image: IGF 2014] The 9th annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is taking place in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-5 September 2014. The overarching theme for the meeting is: "*Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance *". There are webex sessions, live webcasts from the plenary and 10 workshop rooms, with backups via YouTube, plus transcriots. Istanbul is UTC+3 - 7 hours ahead of NYC. *What*: Internet Governance Forum 2014 *Where*: Istanbul, Turkey *When*: 1-5 September 2014 *Schedule*: http://igf2014.intgovforum.org/ *Webcast*: http://webcast.igf2014.org.tr/ *Twitter*: igf2014 Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6944 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 06:52:39 2014 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:52:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: INGO European Media Platform supports this call. Best regards, Oksana On Sep 1, 2014 1:38 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Hi all: > > Jeanette, your post has come through onto the IGC list as far as I can see. > > To respond to the whole thread so far, I think a simple call for > permanency would be weak. Doesn't the NETmundial declaration already talk > about strengthening IGF? So at the very least, a multistakeholder call > would have to include permanent IGF with strengthened support. And unless > this is threat to maintaining cohesion across stakeholder groups which > might be willing to support such call, I'd go as far as introducing > language along the lines of what Anne Jellema proposes (expanded, stable, > predictable funding that is transparently accounted for.) > > If there are stakeholders who are against the latter language, or if there > are broader points (as alluded to earlier) which are beyond the above then > we'll need to have two statements. But the minimum in my view, even for a > multistakeholder call, would have to be for a permanent IGF with > strengthened and sustainable support. > > Mawaki > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that >> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its >> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >> >> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other >> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to >> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community >> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement >> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to >> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive >> statement.) >> >> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only >> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, >> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your >> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >> support in civil society. >> >> jeanette >> >> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email >> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 1 07:41:07 2014 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:41:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1409571667.34995.YahooMailBasic@web172505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I see it a good idea. “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 1/9/14, Deirdre Williams wrote: Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent To: "Internet Governance" , "Mawaki Chango" Date: Monday, 1 September, 2014, 12:10 This suggestion was made this morning. I am passing it on to the list for comment. This needs an URGENT response.Thank youDeirdre  ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeanette Hofmann Date: 1 September 2014 04:33 Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent To: Best Bits , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Hi all, at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. jeanette P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 07:57:23 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:27:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Fantastic call Jeanette. Strongly support. Warmest Subi Chaturvedi On 1 Sep 2014 13:24, "Joana Varon" wrote: > > Agree. > > At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: > > "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will be > implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia: > a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative > ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; > b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including > through a broadened donor base, is essential; > d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions > between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long > standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of > possible ways to address them." > > We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years." > > 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. > > best > > joana > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me on to support as I can. >> >> _ >> João Carlos Caribé >> (021) 8761 1967 >> (021) 4042 7727 >> Skype joaocaribe >> Enviado via iPad >> >> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >> > >> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) >> > >> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 08:27:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:57:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> I support the call. It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and stable source of funding. BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body with institutional funding. Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. parminder On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would > add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems > just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. > > WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for > this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it > is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps > it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable > funding that is transparently accounted for. > > cheers > Anne > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni > > wrote: > > I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial > final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF > should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional > IGFs. > > e > > Eduardo > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon > > wrote: > > Agree. > > At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: > > "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the > UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested > that these recommendations will be > implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include > inter-alia: > a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including > creative > ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of > policy options; > b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the > IGF, including > through a broadened donor base, is essential; > d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide > discussions > between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for > discussing both long > standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to > the identification of > possible ways to address them." > > We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the > IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for > another limited term of 5 or 10 years." > > 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. > > best > > joana > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé > > wrote: > > Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support > this idea count me on to support as I can. > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann > > escreveu: > > > > Hi all, > > > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a > BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a > permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another > limited term of 5 or 10 years. > > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the > BB meeting. > > > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement > with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the > impression that we might be able to draft a > cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical > community and the private sector. (Individual governments > support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be > possible within the few days available to coordiante > enough signatures by governments to make this an all > inclusive statement.) > > > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of > this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration > within the respective groups. So, with this email to the > bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > support in civil society. > > > > jeanette > > > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. > If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would > someone be so kind to forward it? > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 1 08:34:39 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 18:04:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: ICANN not exactly being a government body, I am not sure what constitutional measure can be adopted to make it fund IGF. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Sep-2014, at 17:57, parminder wrote: > > Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 1 08:54:15 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:54:15 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. Wolfgang: ICANN has contributed with 300.000.00 $ to the IGF Budget. This is nearly one quarter. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Sep 1 08:56:18 2014 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:56:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1409576178.9791.YahooMailNeo@web133204.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I fully support that. Best NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 1 septembre 2014 15h28, parminder a écrit : I support the call. It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and stable source of funding. BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body with institutional funding. Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. parminder On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. > > >WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable funding that is transparently accounted for. > > > >cheers >Anne > > > > > > > >On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > >I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional IGFs. >> >> >>e >> >> >>Eduardo >> >> >> >>On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>Agree. >>> >>> >>>At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>> >>> >>>"There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will be >>>implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia: >>>a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative >>>ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; >>>b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including >>>through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions >>>between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long >>>standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of >>>possible ways to address them." >>> >>> >>>We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>> >>> >>>1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>> >>> >>>best >>> >>> >>>joana >>> >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >>> >>>Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>> >>>>_ >>>>João Carlos Caribé >>>>(021) 8761 1967 >>>>(021) 4042 7727 >>>>Skype joaocaribe >>>>Enviado via iPad >>>> >>>>> Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.) >>>>> >>>>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society. >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>-- >>> >>>Joana Varon Ferraz >>>@joana_varon >>>PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > >Anne Jellema >CEO >+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > >+1 202 684 6885 (US) >@afjellema > > >World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Sep 1 10:46:22 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:46:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent Message-ID: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> Hi all, Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis. About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement. Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. We have set up a pad for editing: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. Stephanie and Jeanette Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of the IGF In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”. In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations discuss important questions of economic and social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential. The Secretary-General recommended that (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a further five years; (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN Secretary General to establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum. We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 09:43:37 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:43:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Parminder: > Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some > developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN > to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a > statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. > > Wolfgang: > ICANN has contributed with 300.000.00 $ to the IGF Budget. This is nearly > one quarter. > > That's good Wolfgang, nobody is disputing that. The question is, how to ensure stable and predictable funding for IGF in order to make it permanent. Thanks Mawaki > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 1 09:49:12 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:49:12 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent Hi all, Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis. About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement. Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. We have set up a pad for editing: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. Stephanie and Jeanette Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of the IGF In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue-called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF "with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance". In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations discuss important questions of economic and social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet's great potential. The Secretary-General recommended that (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a further five years; (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that "a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them." Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN Secretary General to establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum. We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 09:51:40 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:21:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] We're listening, in a goodway - social media outreach @IGF #IGF2014 Message-ID: Dear all, Hope all of you landed safely. Delighted to see so many familiar faces. Those who couldn't make it will be missed. But please make sure you speak up and make your voice count. Please see below the link with some relevant information on how to interact via social media at #IGF2014. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2014-social-media(on our website) Want to make sure people see your IGF-related tweets and Facebook posts? Use the official hashtag: #IGF2014 If you are tweeting a workshop, use the hashtag format: #WS. For example, #WS101 See also other hashtags you may also want consider using for workshops and main sessions. Other hashtags you may also want consider using for workshops and main sessions and key themes: Note that, where possible, hashtags already used in Internet governance social media have been used. Main sessions: #access Internet access (including enabling policies) #accountableIG Accountability in Internet governance; ICANN’s accountability process #CIR Critical Internet Resources #DigitalTrust Digital trust; cybersecurity #futureIG Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem and the Role of the IGF and strengthening IGF #humanrights Internet and Human Rights #IANAsteward Transtion of NTIA’s stewardship role over the IANA functions #IG4D Internet governance for development/Policies Enabling Access, Growth and Development on the Internet #IGF101 Setting the Scene: Topical Insight and Debate Related to the Subthemes of IGF 2014 #multistakeholder Multistakeholder model (of Internet governance) #netgov Internet governance #netneutrality Network neutrality #newcomer IGF orientation #takingstock Taking Stock main session Regards Subi Chaturvedi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Sep 1 09:55:14 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:55:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum Support Association inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety #igf2014 Message-ID: The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat, are relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative, and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here. Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100 (minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a civil society representative. There is a mailing list . joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF" The *Internet Governance Forum Support Association* (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the *Internet Governance Forum* (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below. *View on YouTube*: http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/ *Twitter*: #igfsa *Facebook*: #igfsa Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 1 10:00:40 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 11:00:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. --c.a. On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: > I support the call. > > It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional > funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and > stable source of funding. > > BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally > are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body > with institutional funding. > > Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some > developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by > ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a > statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. > > parminder > > On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >> >> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >> funding that is transparently accounted for. >> >> cheers >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >> > wrote: >> >> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >> IGFs. >> >> e >> >> Eduardo >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >> > wrote: >> >> Agree. >> >> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >> >> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >> that these recommendations will be >> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >> inter-alia: >> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >> creative >> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >> policy options; >> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >> IGF, including >> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >> discussions >> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >> discussing both long >> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >> the identification of >> possible ways to address them." >> >> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >> >> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >> > wrote: >> >> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >> this idea count me on to support as I can. >> >> _ >> João Carlos Caribé >> (021) 8761 1967 >> (021) 4042 7727 >> Skype joaocaribe >> Enviado via iPad >> >> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >> > escreveu: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >> BB meeting. >> > >> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >> impression that we might be able to draft a >> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >> possible within the few days available to coordiante >> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >> inclusive statement.) >> > >> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >> support in civil society. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >> someone be so kind to forward it? >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- -- >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> CEO >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >> @afjellema >> * >> * >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 10:15:10 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:45:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <54047F6E.8090506@itforchange.net> I support the call. It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and stable source of funding. BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body with institutional funding. Anne, in the CSRD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. parminder On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would > add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems > just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. > > WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for > this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it > is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps > it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable > funding that is transparently accounted for. > > cheers > Anne > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni > > wrote: > > I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial > final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF > should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional > IGFs. > > e > > Eduardo > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon > > wrote: > > Agree. > > At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: > > "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the > UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested > that these recommendations will be > implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include > inter-alia: > a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including > creative > ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of > policy options; > b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the > IGF, including > through a broadened donor base, is essential; > d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide > discussions > between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for > discussing both long > standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to > the identification of > possible ways to address them." > > We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the > IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for > another limited term of 5 or 10 years." > > 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. > > best > > joana > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé > > wrote: > > Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support > this idea count me on to support as I can. > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann > > escreveu: > > > > Hi all, > > > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a > BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a > permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another > limited term of 5 or 10 years. > > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the > BB meeting. > > > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement > with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the > impression that we might be able to draft a > cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical > community and the private sector. (Individual governments > support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be > possible within the few days available to coordiante > enough signatures by governments to make this an all > inclusive statement.) > > > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of > this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration > within the respective groups. So, with this email to the > bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > support in civil society. > > > > jeanette > > > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. > If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would > someone be so kind to forward it? > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Sep 1 10:24:09 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:24:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <318B00A7-7D45-44D9-A1C2-98546AC18022@theglobaljournal.net> Don't need to be dogmatic Carlos. The UN system is one of the most flexible and adaptive one can dream of. It is a very welcoming space for innovative governance thinking. So it can be a UN spin-off as we have many interesting examples, it can be an entity such as a PPP with a contract to the UN, it can be many things within a UN convention or framework, giving it a special status. So instead of rushing to far too early conclusions, it would rather be just appropriate to mention. I am sure DiploFoundation or Just_Net can bring some good ideas as well. - to transform the IGF mandate into a permanent formal body (emphasizing the shift from an UNDESA project to a more "serious" thing) - to make sure that difference sources of funding are able to provide the IGF a sustainable and efficient action (to make sure that all funding good will is welcome, including a Montevideo I* one or an ICANN direct support (for helping to shape the public policy decision making of the IG)... - to think of what formal status can it be given to for the IGF to have a democratic multistakeholder governance and structure. ( to keep track and spirit of the NetMundial progress) Along these simple lines, I don't see any betrayal of the NetMundial final statement (and comments). We might not need "to request". We might be much more efficient - if CS act with unanimity, i.e. being very strong in its stance - if the statement goes like : All CS participating to the 2014 IGF commend unanimously the possibility for the UN to envision the IGF as .... and a less formal and directive: "we request the UN Secretary General to establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum. We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes." JC Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:00, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. > > --c.a. > > On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >> I support the call. >> >> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >> stable source of funding. >> >> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >> with institutional funding. >> >> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >> >> parminder >> >> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>> >>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>> >>> cheers >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>> IGFs. >>> >>> e >>> >>> Eduardo >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>> >>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>> that these recommendations will be >>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>> inter-alia: >>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>> creative >>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>> policy options; >>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>> IGF, including >>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>> discussions >>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>> discussing both long >>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>> the identification of >>> possible ways to address them." >>> >>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>> >>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>> >>> _ >>> João Carlos Caribé >>> (021) 8761 1967 >>> (021) 4042 7727 >>> Skype joaocaribe >>> Enviado via iPad >>> >>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>> > escreveu: >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>> BB meeting. >>> > >>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>> inclusive statement.) >>> > >>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>> support in civil society. >>> > >>> > jeanette >>> > >>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- -- >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne Jellema >>> CEO >>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>> @afjellema >>> * >>> * >>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 10:27:09 2014 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:27:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54047F6E.8090506@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54047F6E.8090506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: We all are working to get support association for IGF. We make the workshop for that today in istanbul. 2014-09-01 15:15 GMT+01:00 parminder : > > I support the call. > > It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional > funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and > stable source of funding. > > BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally are > not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body with > institutional funding. > > Anne, in the CSRD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some > developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by ICANN > to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a statutory/ > constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. > > parminder > > On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would add > to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems just as > important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. > > WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for this > purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it is > considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps it's > enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable funding that is > transparently accounted for. > > cheers > Anne > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni > wrote: > >> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial final >> declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF should do better in >> linking its agenda and wok with the regional IGFs. >> >> e >> >> Eduardo >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >> >>> Agree. >>> >>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>> >>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). >>> Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working >>> group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will >>> be >>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia: >>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative >>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy >>> options; >>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, >>> including >>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions >>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both >>> long >>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the >>> identification of >>> possible ways to address them." >>> >>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a >>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another limited term of >>> 5 or 10 years." >>> >>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé < >>> joao.caribe at me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count >>>> me on to support as I can. >>>> >>>> _ >>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>> Enviado via iPad >>>> >>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement >>>> that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing >>>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >>>> > >>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other >>>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to >>>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community >>>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement >>>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to >>>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive >>>> statement.) >>>> > >>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is >>>> only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. >>>> So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your >>>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>> support in civil society. >>>> > >>>> > jeanette >>>> > >>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this >>>> email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward >>>> it? >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur TIC | ICT Engineer Contact personnel: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 1 10:39:57 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 11:39:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5404853D.7060303@cafonso.ca> Tried to correct some typos but was rejected. --c.a. On 09/01/2014 03:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear all, > > I have started to take some notes online of the "Beyond NETmundial" now > started. It's sketchy, but hope to help. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWvgqff4dWwwBNS9XcsFy1w_RlsQvezI2mmZkVYQRFM/edit > > Somehow, realtime text capturing is not working, now. > > I made it open to everyone who knows the link below, to edit. > Please join if you are in the same room. > > izumi > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 10:54:41 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:54:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> All, There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly. Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission. Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs. George On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. > > --c.a. > > On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >> I support the call. >> >> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >> stable source of funding. >> >> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >> with institutional funding. >> >> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >> >> parminder >> >> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>> >>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>> >>> cheers >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>> IGFs. >>> >>> e >>> >>> Eduardo >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>> >>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>> that these recommendations will be >>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>> inter-alia: >>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>> creative >>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>> policy options; >>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>> IGF, including >>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>> discussions >>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>> discussing both long >>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>> the identification of >>> possible ways to address them." >>> >>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>> >>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>> >>> _ >>> João Carlos Caribé >>> (021) 8761 1967 >>> (021) 4042 7727 >>> Skype joaocaribe >>> Enviado via iPad >>> >>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>> > escreveu: >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>> BB meeting. >>> > >>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>> inclusive statement.) >>> > >>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>> support in civil society. >>> > >>> > jeanette >>> > >>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- -- >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne Jellema >>> CEO >>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>> @afjellema >>> * >>> * >>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 1 11:00:04 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:00:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140901150004.GA796@hserus.net> Fully agreed. Also - for some on this thread - it might be appropriate to constructively engage with ICANN rather than disparage and belittle it with one breath and demand "a constitutional framework" for it to fund the IGF with the next breath .. suresh George Sadowsky [01/09/14 10:54 -0400]: >All, > >There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly. > >Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission. > >Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. > >I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. > >So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs. > >George > > > > >On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>> I support the call. >>> >>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>> stable source of funding. >>> >>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >>> with institutional funding. >>> >>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>> >>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>> IGFs. >>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>> >>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>> that these recommendations will be >>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>> inter-alia: >>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>> creative >>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>> policy options; >>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>> IGF, including >>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>> discussions >>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>> discussing both long >>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>> the identification of >>>> possible ways to address them." >>>> >>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>> >>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>> >>>> _ >>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>> Enviado via iPad >>>> >>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>> > escreveu: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>> BB meeting. >>>> > >>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>> inclusive statement.) >>>> > >>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>> support in civil society. >>>> > >>>> > jeanette >>>> > >>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- -- >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anne Jellema >>>> CEO >>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>> @afjellema >>>> * >>>> * >>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Sep 1 11:00:34 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:00:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note In-Reply-To: <5404853D.7060303@cafonso.ca> References: <5404853D.7060303@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Sorry, Now I changed the status so that anyone can edit/change. izumi 2014-09-01 23:39 GMT+09:00 Carlos A. Afonso : > Tried to correct some typos but was rejected. > > --c.a. > > > On 09/01/2014 03:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have started to take some notes online of the "Beyond NETmundial" now >> started. It's sketchy, but hope to help. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWvgqff4dWwwBNS9XcsFy1w_ >> RlsQvezI2mmZkVYQRFM/edit >> >> Somehow, realtime text capturing is not working, now. >> >> I made it open to everyone who knows the link below, to edit. >> Please join if you are in the same room. >> >> izumi >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 11:06:14 2014 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:06:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Estoy de acuerdo en pedir al "Secretario General de la ONU para establecer el IGF como un foro permanente de múltiples partes interesadas. También solicitar que el Secretario General de la ONU trabaje con el IGF y sus partes interesadas para fortalecer su estructura y procesos." Pienso también que la lista debe llamar a que se emita opinión sobre este asunto. *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2014-09-01 9:54 GMT-05:00 George Sadowsky : > All, > > There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is > not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions > regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions > made by the UN General Assembly. > > Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a > non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) > that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the > time who were working the event were told to let management know if he > showed up so that he could be denied admission. > > Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was > finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to > further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This > delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD > to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. > > I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are > probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. > > So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not > foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom > up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- > and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN > administration/control/funding of future IGFs. > > George > > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a > sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other > sources. > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: > >> I support the call. > >> > >> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional > >> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and > >> stable source of funding. > >> > >> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally > >> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body > >> with institutional funding. > >> > >> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some > >> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by > >> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a > >> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would > >>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems > >>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. > >>> > >>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for > >>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it > >>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps > >>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable > >>> funding that is transparently accounted for. > >>> > >>> cheers > >>> Anne > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial > >>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF > >>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional > >>> IGFs. > >>> > >>> e > >>> > >>> Eduardo > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Agree. > >>> > >>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: > >>> > >>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum > >>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the > >>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested > >>> that these recommendations will be > >>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include > >>> inter-alia: > >>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including > >>> creative > >>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of > >>> policy options; > >>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > >>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the > >>> IGF, including > >>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; > >>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide > >>> discussions > >>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > >>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for > >>> discussing both long > >>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to > >>> the identification of > >>> possible ways to address them." > >>> > >>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the > >>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for > >>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." > >>> > >>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. > >>> > >>> best > >>> > >>> joana > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support > >>> this idea count me on to support as I can. > >>> > >>> _ > >>> João Carlos Caribé > >>> (021) 8761 1967 > >>> (021) 4042 7727 > >>> Skype joaocaribe > >>> Enviado via iPad > >>> > >>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann > >>> > escreveu: > >>> > > >>> > Hi all, > >>> > > >>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a > >>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a > >>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another > >>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. > >>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the > >>> BB meeting. > >>> > > >>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement > >>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the > >>> impression that we might be able to draft a > >>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical > >>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments > >>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be > >>> possible within the few days available to coordiante > >>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all > >>> inclusive statement.) > >>> > > >>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of > >>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration > >>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the > >>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to > >>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > >>> support in civil society. > >>> > > >>> > jeanette > >>> > > >>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. > >>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would > >>> someone be so kind to forward it? > >>> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>> . > >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>> . > >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- -- > >>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>> @joana_varon > >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. > >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Anne Jellema > >>> CEO > >>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > >>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) > >>> @afjellema > >>> * > >>> * > >>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > >>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > >>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 11:28:07 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:58:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum Support Association inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety #igf2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks Joly for sharing. And many congratulations to the global IG community. Please find attached the link to the news release regarding the launch of the #IGFSA shared by Markus Kummer. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/new-association-launched-support-internet-governance-forum-and-its-essential-role-addressing Do please share it amongst your community and stakeholder groups. The Internet Governance Support Association is here, please spread the word. Individual memberships 25 usd Moral entities read groups companies bodies 100 USD (annual) Some key Priorities: 1. Enable small and medium contributions for the IGF. 2. Facilitating new and diverse participants at the IGF ( we recognise only too well a strong need especially for developing countries and emerging economies CS participants. 3. Strengthening the IGF Secretariat. They do a great job work really hard and helping hands will make OUR IGF better and create value for all. Call: Join, engage, support. Open up your hearts and loosen your purse strings. Sign up and contribute. Warmest Subi Chaturvedi On 1 Sep 2014 19:26, "Joly MacFie" wrote: > > > The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat, are relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative, and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here. Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100 (minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a civil society representative. There is a mailing list. > > joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF" > > > The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below. > > View on YouTube: http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf > Transcribe on AMARA: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/ > Twitter: #igfsa > Facebook: #igfsa > > > > Comment > See all comments > > > > > > Permalink > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954 > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20140901_151829.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 276344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20140901_151840.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 309163 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Mon Sep 1 11:42:28 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:42:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org> Jeanette, Stephanie Great initiative. Would be wonderful if we could turn this around, get signatures and announce during the open mic/closing session. Can we try and get comments by end of Wednesday, sign-ons by end of day Thurs? Letter may be a little long and overly full of UN text references - but that may be a matter of tweaking. Best. Matthew On 9/1/2014 5:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN > Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent > basis. > > About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the > IGF and from the NetMundial Statement. > > Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and > perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. > > Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. > > We have set up a pad for editing: > > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K > > For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. > > The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. > > Stephanie and Jeanette > > > > Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of > the IGF > > > In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the > Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) > The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating > to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in > the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, > security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and > developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing > arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was > intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding > process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations > of the Internet. > The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation > with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to > make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its > sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the > mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a > view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet > governance”. > In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the > UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. > It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and > international organizations discuss important questions of economic > and social development. They share their insights and achievements and > build a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential. > > > The Secretary-General recommended that > (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for > a further five years; > (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member > States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the > outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; > > Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the > preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for > development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 > New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) > The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated > in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that > there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN > CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also > stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for > discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to > contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” > > Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the > continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN > Secretary General to establish the IGF as a permanent > multistakeholder forum. We also request that the UN Secretary General > work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and > processes. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Sep 1 13:44:12 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:44:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN? Just smiling a bit. Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to. So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh) JC Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit : > All, > > There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly. > > Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission. > > Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. > > I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. > > So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs. > > George > > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>> I support the call. >>> >>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>> stable source of funding. >>> >>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >>> with institutional funding. >>> >>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>> >>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>> IGFs. >>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>> >>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>> that these recommendations will be >>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>> inter-alia: >>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>> creative >>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>> policy options; >>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>> IGF, including >>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>> discussions >>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>> discussing both long >>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>> the identification of >>>> possible ways to address them." >>>> >>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>> >>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>> >>>> _ >>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>> Enviado via iPad >>>> >>>>> Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>> > escreveu: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>> BB meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>> >>>>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>> support in civil society. >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- -- >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anne Jellema >>>> CEO >>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>> @afjellema >>>> * >>>> * >>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Sep 1 14:56:07 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 14:56:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum Support Association inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety #igf2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was a long night! So I screwed up the 'View on YouTube" link! Sorry about that. It is http://youtu.be/J29H6UzFEcs, I've corrected below. There is also now a press release at http://www.internetsociety.org/news/new-association-launched-support-internet-governance-forum-and-its-essential-role-addressing On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has > thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated > in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat, > are relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a > pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has > become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative, > and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support > organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect > officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here. > Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100 > (minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a > civil society representative. There is a mailing list > . > > joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) > has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The > IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF" > > > The *Internet Governance Forum Support Association* > (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the *Internet > Governance Forum* (IGF) Secretariat and to > fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at > the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below. > > > > *View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/J29H6UzFEcs > *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/ > *Twitter*: #igfsa > > *Facebook*: #igfsa > > > Comment See all comments > > > > > > > *Permalink* > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954 > > > > > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 15:48:31 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:48:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1880DDD4-4E16-4DD2-BF95-4206B1DE7729@gmail.com> I don't share your sense of humor and I do not find your tone constructive. My point is that the UN as an organization is a creation of governments, and it responds through the political process to what governments want -- as it did when China caused the UN to expel Taiwan. Perhaps it's easier to see in the context of the ITU, one of the UN's specialized agencies. My point is that the UN as an organization has its strong and its weak points. The discussion seemed to indicate a sense that the UN was a panacea to the problems of Internet governance. The issue is not whether there's a better organization that covers the world. The issue is how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF that we want. The UN may be a part of how that home is provided, but it definitely should not dominate in any manner. George On Sep 1, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN? > > Just smiling a bit. > > Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. > > Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to. > > So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh) > > > JC > > > > > Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit : > >> All, >> >> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly. >> >> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission. >> >> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >> >> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >> >> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >> >> George >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> I support the call. >>>> >>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>> stable source of funding. >>>> >>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >>>> with institutional funding. >>>> >>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>> >>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Anne <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 16:11:38 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:11:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum Support Association inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety #igf2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The character of the UN IGF Secretariat role on the board will be important. This is more of a legal structure now, keep in mind. We may have some hope of some real balance (which it is very difficult to establish in the international arena) if we watch how far the role approaches that of a "plenipotentiary" -- but of course, as we all know, it does derive from an intergovernmental body. (Just saying. I'm not going to be reassured until our fundamental liberties are rooted in constitutional systems that we have set up, rather than placing faith in systems not rooted properly in that way. I don't think anybody should be comfortable before we undertake things based on that understanding. Certainly the idea is laudable that a group on the side of the kind of stewardship to which we are accustomed, and that we might be expected to regard as independent, would act to support the IGF right about now.) Seth On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has > thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated > in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat, > are relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a > pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has > become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative, > and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support > organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect > officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here. > Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100 > (minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a > civil society representative. There is a mailing list > . > > joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) > has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The > IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF" > > > The *Internet Governance Forum Support Association* > (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the *Internet > Governance Forum* (IGF) Secretariat and to > fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at > the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below. > > > > *View on YouTube*: > http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf > *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/ > *Twitter*: #igfsa > > *Facebook*: #igfsa > > > Comment See all comments > > > > > > > *Permalink* > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954 > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Sep 1 16:23:03 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:23:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <1880DDD4-4E16-4DD2-BF95-4206B1DE7729@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <1880DDD4-4E16-4DD2-BF95-4206B1DE7729@gmail.com> Message-ID: <23E16C51-32A2-4E77-81EE-AF5B4F267C74@theglobaljournal.net> No, the issue is not about how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF, when CS writes to UN SG tomorrow. It is first about creating a permanent "IGF", then to fund it decently, then to make it compliant with the Netmundial's idea of a democratic MS model. So before taking IGF away from the UN, let's start to find unanimity over the next reasonable and achievable step. Asking for the moon (new home for IGF) now is not constructive. It is not about the tone of anyone's email - between you and me, we might not like the same kind of wine, and this is still fine. If CS wants to go forward and weight on the future of IG, there is only one way forward : unanimity. That would be the real message. A highly constructive one. Not starting again a discussion about the strong and weak points of any entity, now. This is what is at stake, just over the next three days. That can be achieved. JC Le 1 sept. 2014 à 21:48, George Sadowsky a écrit : > I don't share your sense of humor and I do not find your tone constructive. > > My point is that the UN as an organization is a creation of governments, and it responds through the political process to what governments want -- as it did when China caused the UN to expel Taiwan. Perhaps it's easier to see in the context of the ITU, one of the UN's specialized agencies. > > My point is that the UN as an organization has its strong and its weak points. The discussion seemed to indicate a sense that the UN was a panacea to the problems of Internet governance. The issue is not whether there's a better organization that covers the world. The issue is how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF that we want. The UN may be a part of how that home is provided, but it definitely should not dominate in any manner. > > George > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN? >> >> Just smiling a bit. >> >> Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. >> >> Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to. >> >> So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh) >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit : >> >>> All, >>> >>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly. >>> >>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>> >>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>> >>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>> >>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support the call. >>>>> >>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>> >>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>> >>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers >>>>>> Anne > > <> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From langdonorr at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 16:37:28 2014 From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:37:28 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <2964D218-6A04-4727-99BF-0B3FA82D754E@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2964D218-6A04-4727-99BF-0B3FA82D754E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Support from me... On Sep 1, 2014 5:39 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Definitely support > > Bill > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > I fully support this idea. One Problem - which probably has to be > touched by the Statement - would be the future relationship to UNDESA and > the status of the MAG. > > > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette > Hofmann > > Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 10:33 > > An: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Betreff: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent > > > > Hi all, > > > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing > > its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able > > to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical > > community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a > > statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days > > available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an > > all inclusive statement.) > > > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only > > an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, > > with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your > > opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > > support in civil society. > > > > jeanette > > > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Sep 1 16:42:24 2014 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:42:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on IGF. Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily report. Better not to go through this path. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >All, > >There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >made by the UN General Assembly. > >Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >showed up so that he could be denied admission. > >Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. > >I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. > >So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >administration/control/funding of future IGFs. > >George > > > > >On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>other sources. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>> I support the call. >>> >>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>> stable source of funding. >>> >>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>body >>> with institutional funding. >>> >>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>measure. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>> >>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>> IGFs. >>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>> >>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>> that these recommendations will be >>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>> inter-alia: >>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>> creative >>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>> policy options; >>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>> IGF, including >>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>> discussions >>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>> discussing both long >>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>> the identification of >>>> possible ways to address them." >>>> >>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>> >>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>> >>>> _ >>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>> Enviado via iPad >>>> >>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>> > escreveu: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>> BB meeting. >>>> > >>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>> inclusive statement.) >>>> > >>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>> support in civil society. >>>> > >>>> > jeanette >>>> > >>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- -- >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anne Jellema >>>> CEO >>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>> @afjellema >>>> * >>>> * >>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Sep 1 16:53:54 2014 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:53:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Izumi, quite valid help! Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 From: Izumi AIZU Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Izumi AIZU Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 at 3:41 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Beyond NETmundial note Dear all, I have started to take some notes online of the "Beyond NETmundial" now started. It's sketchy, but hope to help. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWvgqff4dWwwBNS9XcsFy1w_RlsQvezI2mmZkVYQ RFM/edit Somehow, realtime text capturing is not working, now. I made it open to everyone who knows the link below, to edit. Please join if you are in the same room. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jhuns at vt.edu Mon Sep 1 16:59:11 2014 From: jhuns at vt.edu (Jeremy Hunsinger) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:59:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I fully support this too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 17:25:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:55:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5404E451.60604@itforchange.net> On Monday 01 September 2014 07:30 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming > a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come > from other sources. Are you suggesting that all funding should be non UN? If so, what could be the possible sources? parminder > > --c.a. > > On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >> I support the call. >> >> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >> stable source of funding. >> >> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >> with institutional funding. >> >> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >> >> parminder >> >> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>> >>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>> >>> cheers >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>> IGFs. >>> >>> e >>> >>> Eduardo >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>> >>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>> that these recommendations will be >>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>> inter-alia: >>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>> creative >>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>> policy options; >>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>> IGF, including >>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>> discussions >>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>> discussing both long >>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>> the identification of >>> possible ways to address them." >>> >>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>> >>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>> >>> _ >>> João Carlos Caribé >>> (021) 8761 1967 >>> (021) 4042 7727 >>> Skype joaocaribe >>> Enviado via iPad >>> >>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>> > escreveu: >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>> BB meeting. >>> > >>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>> inclusive statement.) >>> > >>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>> support in civil society. >>> > >>> > jeanette >>> > >>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- -- >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne Jellema >>> CEO >>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>> @afjellema >>> * >>> * >>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 17:38:12 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 03:08:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. parminder On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF > totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on > IGF. > Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also > long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, > besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily > report. > Better not to go through this path. > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 > 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil > Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 > Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 > > > > > > > > On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: > >> All, >> >> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >> made by the UN General Assembly. >> >> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >> >> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >> >> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >> >> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >> >> George >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>> other sources. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> I support the call. >>>> >>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>> stable source of funding. >>>> >>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>> body >>>> with institutional funding. >>>> >>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>> measure. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>> >>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>> IGFs. >>>>> >>>>> e >>>>> >>>>> Eduardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agree. >>>>> >>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>> >>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>> inter-alia: >>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>> creative >>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>> policy options; >>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>> IGF, including >>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>> discussions >>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>> discussing both long >>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>> the identification of >>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>> >>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>> >>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>> >>>>> best >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>> >>>>> _ >>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>> >>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>> > escreveu: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi all, >>>>> > >>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>> BB meeting. >>>>> > >>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>> > >>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>> support in civil society. >>>>> > >>>>> > jeanette >>>>> > >>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>> CEO >>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>> @afjellema >>>>> * >>>>> * >>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 17:52:02 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:52:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible with the overall aims of the IGF. My Taiwan illustration was just that. And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents insecure funding. In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is suggesting that no funding come from the UN. I note that the Internet Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more permanent basis. In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and so have some governments. I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not used to promote the special interests of the sector. This has in part been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote. You may wish to add some caveats, but the principle stands. All sectors do have their own interests, but none are pure evil. All sectors have something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute. I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion. George On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder wrote: > > If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. > > It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >> IGF. >> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >> report. >> Better not to go through this path. >> Vanda Scartezini >> Polo Consultores Associados >> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>> >>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>> >>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>> >>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>> >>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>> other sources. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support the call. >>>>> >>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>> body >>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>> >>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>> measure. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>> >>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>> >>>>>> e >>>>>> >>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Agree. >>>>>> >>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>> >>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>> creative >>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>> policy options; >>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>> discussions >>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>> the identification of >>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>> >>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>> >>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>> >>>>>> _ >>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>> > >>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- -- >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>>> CEO >>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>>> @afjellema >>>>>> * >>>>>> * >>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 18:40:18 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:40:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Most surprisingly to me George, you have a very narrow view about going from A (current state of IGF - dead-end) to B (a reinvented IGF). Instead of trying putting into everyone's mind doubt and fear (my god, the UN budget!!) about the weak points of the UN, (we all see weak points in the US as well and thanks to people like Suzan Crawford and Jaron lanier to be the honest observers of what's going wrong in the telecommunication and Internet world), instead of making your statement on the assumption that the UN is not being compatible with an undefined MS model that has failed as has the IGF itself, instead of all that and more, I would encourage you to allow us some room for a refreshing thinking. And allow innovation. As I wrote in my first email today, the UN system offers more innovative space and room for imagination than any other governing space. For a young institution created during the second world war, I find this encouraging. A few examples: Interpeace is a great peacebuilding NGO that was created from within the UN ; the GAVI alliance was created thanks to the UN and not just because of its weak points, the R20 was launched by a UN senior executive at UNDP, I could bring dozens of examples of how the UN successfully gave birth to many different kind of "birds". These spin-offs and institutional start-ups have their freedom, still having a strong link to the UN, and part of its DNA, some of it isn't that bad after all in terms of universal declaration of human rights to name a few. There are not intergovernmental bodies per say. But they have some UN blood. You don't necessarily need a UN budget to achieve all of that. We have plenty other options, and indeed Parminder is right, ICANN can put into its bylaws that part of its revenues goes to that future body as a recognition of IGF making better recommendation for public policy and interest. ICANN one day says this is not its business, the next day explains us that it does because no one else does it. Amusing. The IGF is as we know it today a dead machine. Unless CS unites and suggests (not even request) a way forward. Not necessarily a dream land, but at least something that capitalizes over the failures, the vacuums, the ideas (some clearly written in the NetMundial different statements (remember the opening speech, all the contributions, the final statement, the comments). So yes we need the UN at this stage, because IG has a BIG problem of legitimacy, a problem that the MS model has only but enlarged, taking us all to an amazing point of distrust. Anyway we can not do as if the IGF wasn't a child of the UN. So if there is a way forward, let's take what we can from the UN to incorporate some legitimacy, democracy and trust (desire for democracy) in these discussions. This is what I would recognized - from people like you George - as a fantastic achievement. Remember that the UN was made in a in time-breaking fashion by a club of willing over a few months during the war. 10 years of the current IGF have done what? So yes it is time for a change. A BIG on. Stop guarding the gate, open it. Then you'll be surprised by the incredible advancement of things. JC Le 1 sept. 2014 à 23:52, George Sadowsky a écrit : > There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible with the overall aims of the IGF. My Taiwan illustration was just that. And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents insecure funding. > > In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is suggesting that no funding come from the UN. I note that the Internet Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more permanent basis. In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and so have some governments. > > I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not used to promote the special interests of the sector. This has in part been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote. You may wish to add some caveats, but the principle stands. All sectors do have their own interests, but none are pure evil. All sectors have something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute. > > I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion. > > George > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. >> >> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >>> IGF. >>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >>> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >>> report. >>> Better not to go through this path. >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> Polo Consultores Associados >>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>>> >>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>>> >>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>>> >>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>>> >>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>>> other sources. >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> I support the call. >>>>>> >>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>>> body >>>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>>> measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> e >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>>> creative >>>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>>> policy options; >>>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>>> discussions >>>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>>> the identification of >>>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _ >>>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- -- >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>>>> CEO >>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>>>> @afjellema >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 20:32:44 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:32:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8C42F7F4-E463-4ED2-A32A-BE7532F3081D@gmail.com> I stand by my previous remarks, but add the following: The UN has lots of potential to do good, but is often constrained in ways that reduce its effectiveness substantially. I worked at the UN Secretariat for 13 years, and I know this in depth, first hand. Your comments regarding innovation spare are contradicted by my experience. I am not trying to put everyone's mind in fear. Don't attribute to me things that are not true. There is no question that there are anticompetitive elements in the world's telecommunication system. There are points of contention in almost all countries and industries. But that does not in general make countries and organizations uniformly evil. This argument has nothing to do with having a strong and functioning IGF, except maybe that such an IGF could help to ameliorate some of the existing problems. I suspect that all organizations can be improved. The IGF is not a dead machine as you state, but an evolving one. There are differing views regarding which way it should evolve. Your specific view is not universally shared. I look forward to the results of current efforts by the private sector and the technical community to build a more durable base for the IGF. I trust that you do also, and that you do not reject support from sectors other than your own. Based upon no intervention from others, I think that this thread has achieved all the usefulness that it will have, and I will be reluctant to carry it further. George On Sep 1, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Most surprisingly to me George, you have a very narrow view about going from A (current state of IGF - dead-end) to B (a reinvented IGF). > > Instead of trying putting into everyone's mind doubt and fear (my god, the UN budget!!) about the weak points of the UN, (we all see weak points in the US as well and thanks to people like Suzan Crawford and Jaron lanier to be the honest observers of what's going wrong in the telecommunication and Internet world), instead of making your statement on the assumption that the UN is not being compatible with an undefined MS model that has failed as has the IGF itself, instead of all that and more, I would encourage you to allow us some room for a refreshing thinking. And allow innovation. As I wrote in my first email today, the UN system offers more innovative space and room for imagination than any other governing space. For a young institution created during the second world war, I find this encouraging. > > A few examples: > Interpeace is a great peacebuilding NGO that was created from within the UN ; the GAVI alliance was created thanks to the UN and not just because of its weak points, the R20 was launched by a UN senior executive at UNDP, I could bring dozens of examples of how the UN successfully gave birth to many different kind of "birds". > > These spin-offs and institutional start-ups have their freedom, still having a strong link to the UN, and part of its DNA, some of it isn't that bad after all in terms of universal declaration of human rights to name a few. There are not intergovernmental bodies per say. But they have some UN blood. You don't necessarily need a UN budget to achieve all of that. We have plenty other options, and indeed Parminder is right, ICANN can put into its bylaws that part of its revenues goes to that future body as a recognition of IGF making better recommendation for public policy and interest. ICANN one day says this is not its business, the next day explains us that it does because no one else does it. Amusing. > > The IGF is as we know it today a dead machine. Unless CS unites and suggests (not even request) a way forward. Not necessarily a dream land, but at least something that capitalizes over the failures, the vacuums, the ideas (some clearly written in the NetMundial different statements (remember the opening speech, all the contributions, the final statement, the comments). So yes we need the UN at this stage, because IG has a BIG problem of legitimacy, a problem that the MS model has only but enlarged, taking us all to an amazing point of distrust. Anyway we can not do as if the IGF wasn't a child of the UN. > > So if there is a way forward, let's take what we can from the UN to incorporate some legitimacy, democracy and trust (desire for democracy) in these discussions. > > This is what I would recognized - from people like you George - as a fantastic achievement. > > Remember that the UN was made in a in time-breaking fashion by a club of willing over a few months during the war. 10 years of the current IGF have done what? So yes it is time for a change. A BIG on. Stop guarding the gate, open it. Then you'll be surprised by the incredible advancement of things. > > JC > > Le 1 sept. 2014 à 23:52, George Sadowsky a écrit : > >> There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible with the overall aims of the IGF. My Taiwan illustration was just that. And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents insecure funding. >> >> In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is suggesting that no funding come from the UN. I note that the Internet Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more permanent basis. In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and so have some governments. >> >> I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not used to promote the special interests of the sector. This has in part been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote. You may wish to add some caveats, but the principle stands. All sectors do have their own interests, but none are pure evil. All sectors have something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute. >> >> I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion. >> >> George >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. >>> >>> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >>>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >>>> IGF. >>>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >>>> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >>>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >>>> report. >>>> Better not to go through this path. >>>> Vanda Scartezini >>>> Polo Consultores Associados >>>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >>>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >>>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >>>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>>>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>>>> >>>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>>>> >>>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>>>> >>>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>>>> >>>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>>>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>>>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>>>> other sources. >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> I support the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>>>> body >>>>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>>>> measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> e >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>>>> creative >>>>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>>>> policy options; >>>>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>>>> discussions >>>>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>>>> the identification of >>>>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- -- >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>>>>> CEO >>>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>>>>> @afjellema >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 1 21:48:50 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:18:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <5404E451.60604@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <5404E451.60604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6C58977A-7DCE-41A0-9ADE-65AEEFA308FE@hserus.net> Could be oh, just like what's available today - a mix of government, isoc, ICANN, business etc funding. At least this way you won't have the number of strings attached that exclusive UN or any other single source funding on this scale will definitely attract. --srs (iPad) > On 02-Sep-2014, at 2:55, parminder wrote: > > >> On Monday 01 September 2014 07:30 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources. > > Are you suggesting that all funding should be non UN? If so, what could be the possible sources? parminder > >> >> --c.a. >> >>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>> I support the call. >>> >>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>> stable source of funding. >>> >>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body >>> with institutional funding. >>> >>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>> >>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>> IGFs. >>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>> >>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>> that these recommendations will be >>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>> inter-alia: >>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>> creative >>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>> policy options; >>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>> IGF, including >>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>> discussions >>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>> discussing both long >>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>> the identification of >>>> possible ways to address them." >>>> >>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>> >>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>> >>>> _ >>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>> Enviado via iPad >>>> >>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>> > escreveu: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>> BB meeting. >>>> > >>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>> inclusive statement.) >>>> > >>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>> support in civil society. >>>> > >>>> > jeanette >>>> > >>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- -- >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anne Jellema >>>> CEO >>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>> @afjellema >>>> * >>>> * >>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 1 21:57:04 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:27:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <22871815-A679-4FB8-8CB3-6F9411AC4FC8@hserus.net> I am sorry to contradict you on this, especially because I do like the work of both the persons below Susan Crawford is an activist, with her own political viewpoint, and a tendency to shrillness and disparaging "the opposition" (including use of memes in her regular blog posts on the subject such as extortion, eavesdropping and such) that are very little conducive to actual engagement. She is on one extreme with say Richard Bennett on the other. I see little or no middle path or nuance there. The new FCC CTO Scott Jordan, formerly of UC Irvine, is one of the very few in this field who has so far combined neutrality (in the academic as well as the network sense of the word) with academic rigor. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~sjordan/research/net%20neutrality.html --srs (iPad) > On 02-Sep-2014, at 4:10, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > Most surprisingly to me George, you have a very narrow view about going from A (current state of IGF - dead-end) to B (a reinvented IGF). > > Instead of trying putting into everyone's mind doubt and fear (my god, the UN budget!!) about the weak points of the UN, (we all see weak points in the US as well and thanks to people like Suzan Crawford and Jaron lanier to be the honest observers of what's going wrong in the telecommunication and Internet world), instead of making your statement on the assumption that the UN is not being compatible with an undefined MS model that has failed as has the IGF itself, instead of all that and more, I would encourage you to allow us some room for a refreshing thinking. And allow innovation. As I wrote in my first email today, the UN system offers more innovative space and room for imagination than any other governing space. For a young institution created during the second world war, I find this encouraging. > > A few examples: > Interpeace is a great peacebuilding NGO that was created from within the UN ; the GAVI alliance was created thanks to the UN and not just because of its weak points, the R20 was launched by a UN senior executive at UNDP, I could bring dozens of examples of how the UN successfully gave birth to many different kind of "birds". > > These spin-offs and institutional start-ups have their freedom, still having a strong link to the UN, and part of its DNA, some of it isn't that bad after all in terms of universal declaration of human rights to name a few. There are not intergovernmental bodies per say. But they have some UN blood. You don't necessarily need a UN budget to achieve all of that. We have plenty other options, and indeed Parminder is right, ICANN can put into its bylaws that part of its revenues goes to that future body as a recognition of IGF making better recommendation for public policy and interest. ICANN one day says this is not its business, the next day explains us that it does because no one else does it. Amusing. > > The IGF is as we know it today a dead machine. Unless CS unites and suggests (not even request) a way forward. Not necessarily a dream land, but at least something that capitalizes over the failures, the vacuums, the ideas (some clearly written in the NetMundial different statements (remember the opening speech, all the contributions, the final statement, the comments). So yes we need the UN at this stage, because IG has a BIG problem of legitimacy, a problem that the MS model has only but enlarged, taking us all to an amazing point of distrust. Anyway we can not do as if the IGF wasn't a child of the UN. > > So if there is a way forward, let's take what we can from the UN to incorporate some legitimacy, democracy and trust (desire for democracy) in these discussions. > > This is what I would recognized - from people like you George - as a fantastic achievement. > > Remember that the UN was made in a in time-breaking fashion by a club of willing over a few months during the war. 10 years of the current IGF have done what? So yes it is time for a change. A BIG on. Stop guarding the gate, open it. Then you'll be surprised by the incredible advancement of things. > > JC > >> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 23:52, George Sadowsky a écrit : >> >> There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible with the overall aims of the IGF. My Taiwan illustration was just that. And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents insecure funding. >> >> In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is suggesting that no funding come from the UN. I note that the Internet Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more permanent basis. In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and so have some governments. >> >> I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not used to promote the special interests of the sector. This has in part been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote. You may wish to add some caveats, but the principle stands. All sectors do have their own interests, but none are pure evil. All sectors have something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute. >> >> I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion. >> >> George >> >> >>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. >>> >>> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >>>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >>>> IGF. >>>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >>>> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >>>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >>>> report. >>>> Better not to go through this path. >>>> Vanda Scartezini >>>> Polo Consultores Associados >>>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >>>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >>>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >>>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>>>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>>>> >>>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>>>> >>>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>>>> >>>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>>>> >>>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>>>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>>>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>>>> other sources. >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> I support the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>>>> body >>>>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>>>> measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> e >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>>>> creative >>>>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>>>> policy options; >>>>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>>>> discussions >>>>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>>>> the identification of >>>>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Sep 2 02:34:16 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:34:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> Message-ID: <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> Hi all, (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of these lists) Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments received so far: 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for. This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF. 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN General Assembly. Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes) 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it. Statement should be read in the closing session? I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this. jeanette Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria: > (removed cross posting) > > Hi, > > I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start. > > I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text > relatively brief > > I think the letter needs to include some information about the > development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the > ability to do longer range planning. I have added some text to that end. > > I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the > IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected > on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years. > As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples can > be lifted from that effort/report. I am not aware of the progress being > made on that report and whether it is available at this point. > > Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made. > > avri > > > On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann >> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 >> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent >> >> Hi all, >> >> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis. >> >> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF >> and from the NetMundial Statement. >> >> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >> >> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >> >> We have set up a pad for editing: >> >> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >> >> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >> >> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >> >> Stephanie and Jeanette >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 04:30:49 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:30:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear All, This Tuesday morning, in Istanbul, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group attending the IGF2014 (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, Jeremy Malcolm from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative. This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time. One of the first points that was made in the meeting was that at the WEF they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this. So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicized version of NETmundial. Presumably, many of us will warmly welcome this news. Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this. They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved. The value add of the WEF, they explained, is to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions. The steering committee would include all stakeholders to ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects. They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. The other members would be 3-4 from each one of the following groups: business (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organizations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics. Please note: they confirmed their intention to treat academic community separately to Civil Society or technical community or any other grouping - as per NetMundial and 1net patterns. The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before. Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that their constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives. WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments. They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged. They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this. Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus. They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. WEF, after our request, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 - and there are still some details to finalize. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations probably no later than Friday - the last day of IGF - to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process. I am posting this to begin such a discussion - others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work ( http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth). The News Release from the live event launching the initiative can be found here: http://www.weforum.org/news/new-initiative-internet-governance-live-event?news=page Warm regards, Mawaki IGC Co-coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Sep 2 04:38:41 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:38:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54058211.8090409@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks George, we are indeed trying to be constructive. I have tried to reflect some of the previous comments in the draft, which is here at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K and will do another roundup later today. We aim for mid-week. In my view, the broader the funding the better, as it weakens the risk of capture. We cannot, as others have pointed out, go to the UN asking for a permanent body without describing potential funding. Cheers and thanks for all the help and support. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-09-01, 17:52, George Sadowsky wrote: > There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible > with the overall aims of the IGF. My Taiwan illustration was just > that. And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular > budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called > extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents > insecure funding. > > In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is > suggesting that no funding come from the UN. I note that the Internet > Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more > permanent basis. In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and > so have some governments. > > I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided > that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not > used to promote the special interests of the sector. This has in part > been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote. You may > wish to add some caveats, but the principle stands. All sectors do > have their own interests, but none are pure evil. All sectors have > something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute. > > I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative > mode rather than an environment of suspicion. > > George > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, >> maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, >> one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised >> public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is >> being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' >> without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any >> doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the >> World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF >> is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. >> >> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered >> to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is >> wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >>> IGF. >>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >>> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >>> report. >>> Better not to go through this path. >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> Polo Consultores Associados >>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>>> >>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>>> >>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>>> >>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>>> >>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>>> other sources. >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> I support the call. >>>>>> >>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>>> body >>>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>>> measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> e >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>>> creative >>>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>>> policy options; >>>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>>> discussions >>>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>>> the identification of >>>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _ >>>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> >bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> >http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- -- >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>>>> CEO >>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>>>> @afjellema >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA |www.webfoundation.org >>>>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 2 04:44:53 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:44:53 +1000 Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F13905BE7DB45DB85300D2170A8096E@Toshiba> Just posted this response on Best Bits – also now here FYI Just adding here a couple of perspectives from my earlier phone call - The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid. Yesterday it was still NetMundial – I am personally glad they have moved away from that while they figure out what this initiative is. Also at my phone call they wanted to nominate two of the four civil society reps themselves – a couple of US based NGOs they work with regularly – this was identified as an issue and I am glad the CS reps were able to get that changed today. They were also prepared to give us a more reasonable deadline for nominations than originally intended – which would have been the middle of next week! The timetable is still tight (by September 21), but is enough time for us to discuss our levels of involvement and get a process under way at the end of this week. So there are some positive signs. Also the level of CS representation – 4 of a committee of 15 – is quite reasonable. But I do get the feeling that things might continue to change and that there is a great uncertainty about the degree to which the staff assigned to this might be able to obtain strong WEF backing for initiatives – and what those initiatives might be. I suspect others who are at IGF might get to talk further with WEF, and those who were at the Geneva meeting might also have additional perspectives. It would be good to share those perspectives here and on other lists so that we can react appropriately. Ian Peter From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:30 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Dear All, This Tuesday morning, in Istanbul, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group attending the IGF2014 (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, Jeremy Malcolm from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative. This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time. One of the first points that was made in the meeting was that at the WEF they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this. So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicized version of NETmundial. Presumably, many of us will warmly welcome this news. Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this. They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved. The value add of the WEF, they explained, is to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions. The steering committee would include all stakeholders to ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects. They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. The other members would be 3-4 from each one of the following groups: business (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organizations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics. Please note: they confirmed their intention to treat academic community separately to Civil Society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns. The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before. Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that their constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives. WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments. They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged. They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this. Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus. They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. WEF, after our request, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalize. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations probably no later than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process. I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth). The News Release from the live event launching the initiative can be found here: http://www.weforum.org/news/new-initiative-internet-governance-live-event?news=page Warm regards, Mawaki IGC Co-coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ymshana2003 at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 05:07:07 2014 From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:07:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Message-ID: Thank you Mawaki for this update. Indeed there is a need to cast the net wider in order to have a substantive representation. This is expecially in giving the Academics a special space in all processes.  Kind regards Yassin Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Mawaki Chango Date:02/09/2014 10:30 (GMT+02:00) To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Dear All, This Tuesday morning, in Istanbul, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group attending the IGF2014 (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, Jeremy Malcolm from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative.  This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time.   One of the first points that was made in the meeting was that at the WEF they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this.  So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicized version of NETmundial.  Presumably, many of us will warmly welcome this news.   Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this.  They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved.   The value add of the WEF, they explained, is to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions.  The steering committee would include all stakeholders to ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects. They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. The other members would be 3-4 from each one of the following groups: business (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organizations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics. Please note: they confirmed their intention to treat academic community separately to Civil Society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns.   The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before.  Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that their constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives.  WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments.   They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged.  They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this.   Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus.  They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these.    WEF, after our request, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalize. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations probably no later than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.   I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists.   Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth). The News Release from the live event launching the initiative can be found here: http://www.weforum.org/news/new-initiative-internet-governance-live-event?news=page   Warm regards, Mawaki  IGC Co-coordinator   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 05:45:02 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:45:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Let Ms. Deirdre Williams Know... Message-ID: Dear all, Just a quick note to remind you all that our own De will be speaking at the opening session later today. I'd like to invite you all to root for her and to cheer for her and let her know the whole universe is going to be benevolent toward her, just at the image of IGC, at the moment she steps on that stage. Take a deep breadth, and good luck my team mate! Hugs, Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 07:32:48 2014 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:32:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Let Ms. Deirdre Williams Know... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Indeed. De was also up and about at meetings before 8 am this morning, was a brilliant lead discussant at Workshop #68, the SIDS Roundtable at 9 am ( http://youtu.be/sU06BdItKB0), was a resource person for the IGF Orientation Session hustling there immediately after, then she was off to Remote Moderate another session on IPR. Go De! +1 ------ Rgds, Tracy On Sep 2, 2014 12:46 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Dear all, > > Just a quick note to remind you all that our own De will be speaking at > the opening session later today. I'd like to invite you all to root for her > and to cheer for her and let her know the whole universe is going to be > benevolent toward her, just at the image of IGC, at the moment she steps on > that stage. Take a deep breadth, and good luck my team mate! > Hugs, > > Mawaki > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 2 10:52:40 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:22:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5405D9B8.5050205@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:19 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:38 PM, parminder > wrote: > > please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to > hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed > > > Quoting from our post-NMI blog: > > More broadly, the views of the World Social Forum > (like the > NETmundial summit, another initiative memorably nurtured by the > government of Brazil) are just as vital as those of the World Economic > Forum, and likely to be diametrically opposed on some issues — isn’t > that what ‘multi-stakeholderism’ means? Yes, Anne, I read the blog, but reserved my comments for later... Just on the point above, I have nothing against taking 'the views of WEF' as you ask for doing for WSF above... Of course everyone should contribute views. However, we all know that WEF's NMI is not about contributing WEF's views, it is about institutionalising something that is supposed to crystallise the spirit (variously interpreted) of Net Mundial, as a/ the key global IG process. I meant in that sense "to hold the global IG process together". And of course your blog does not suggest such a role for the World Social Forum. It is a bit of an exclusive role in that sense, I think we need to avoid confusion between (1) something being just another global IG initiative and (2) the kind of special aspirations that the WEF's NM initiative has. Of course as just another initiative no one can have any problem with it. In fact that is what I said clearly in my first posting on the WEF's NM Initiative on the IGC list. parminder > > https://webfoundation.org/2014/08/how-can-businesses-help-us-build-the-web-we-want/ > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Sep 2 11:03:47 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:03:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft statement on making the IGF permanent. We have sought advice on various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process tomorrow. The document is also loaded on the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann. On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of > these lists) > > Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments > received so far: > > 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects > in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the > Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request > could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for. > > This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but > that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get > advise from the diplomats @ IGF. > > 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN > General Assembly. > Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from > the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if > we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce > outcomes) > > 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects > such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF > > 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style > > 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate > > 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF > local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for > it. > Statement should be read in the closing session? > > I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are > inventing the drafting process while I am writing this. > > jeanette > > Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria: >> (removed cross posting) >> >> Hi, >> >> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start. >> >> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text >> relatively brief >> >> I think the letter needs to include some information about the >> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the >> ability to do longer range planning. I have added some text to that >> end. >> >> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the >> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected >> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years. >> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples >> can >> be lifted from that effort/report. I am not aware of the progress being >> made on that report and whether it is available at this point. >> >> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I >>> support it. >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette >>> Hofmann >>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 >>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent >>> basis. >>> >>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF >>> and from the NetMundial Statement. >>> >>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >>> >>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >>> >>> We have set up a pad for editing: >>> >>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >>> >>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >>> >>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >>> >>> Stephanie and Jeanette >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendation for consideration to the UN General Assembly for a permanent mandate?of the Internet Governance Forum.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 138333 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Sep 2 12:24:50 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:24:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: {Filename?} Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> Message-ID: <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will always be in need of evolution. jeanette Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill: > permanent implies that no further evolution/change is needed/required/desired. > Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development? > > > /bill > PO Box 12317 > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 > 310.322.8102 > > On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information. >> >> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft statement on making the IGF permanent. We have sought advice on various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process tomorrow. The document is also loaded on the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >> Kind regards, >> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann. >> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of these lists) >>> >>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments received so far: >>> >>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for. >>> >>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF. >>> >>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN General Assembly. >>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes) >>> >>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF >>> >>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style >>> >>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate >>> >>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it. >>> Statement should be read in the closing session? >>> >>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria: >>>> (removed cross posting) >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start. >>>> >>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text >>>> relatively brief >>>> >>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the >>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the >>>> ability to do longer range planning. I have added some text to that end. >>>> >>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the >>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected >>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years. >>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples can >>>> be lifted from that effort/report. I am not aware of the progress being >>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point. >>>> >>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it. >>>>> >>>>> wolfgang >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann >>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 >>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis. >>>>> >>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF >>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement. >>>>> >>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >>>>> >>>>> We have set up a pad for editing: >>>>> >>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >>>>> >>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >>>>> >>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discuss mailing list >>>> discuss at 1net.org >>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat" >> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus. >> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined. >> >> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014: >> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat) >> >> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902 (message s82F4YpS009135). >> >> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it, >> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If this >> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message. >> >> Thank you, >> >> IPC Computing Services >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 11:21:15 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:21:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <9F13905BE7DB45DB85300D2170A8096E@Toshiba> References: <9F13905BE7DB45DB85300D2170A8096E@Toshiba> Message-ID: <0c0a01cfc6c1$89d4dbd0$9d7e9370$@gmail.com> Ian, This may be a side issue for this group but I don’t know where else to direct this. As you know I believe, the NetMundial meeting apparently chose, at least informally to assign the identification of its “academic” component to the GIGAnet group. There was no explanation or rationale given for this of which I am aware and there was no response to the concerns I raised in this regard at the time on behalf of the academic/research component of the Community Informatics community. At the time I pointed out that while the GIGAnet grouping includes many of those with a specific interest/expertise in the more formal and institutional mechanisms and processes of Internet Governance it by no means is inclusive of the broader research/academic community with an overall interest in the governance of the Internet particularly as it might apply to issues of development. It does not to the best of my knowledge include those with for example a specific interest in or expertise in ICT4Development issues where for example those grouped within the Community Informatics network of which I am a part, would probably represent the current largest such grouping. Since the overall intention of the NMI appears to be inclusive of both more formal Internet Governance issues and Development issues as they may pertain to Internet Governance I see no reason for this new initiative to not be rather more inclusive in its identification of its “academic” representation than was NetMundial. I would thus request that the IGC and others of those interacting with the NMI convey this message to them and strongly urge them to ensure an inclusive process for the identification of the academic component of the NMI’s steering committee. Mike Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor: School of Library, Archival and Informations Sciences (iSchool) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CANADA Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: @michaelgurstein From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Just posted this response on Best Bits – also now here FYI Just adding here a couple of perspectives from my earlier phone call - The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid. Yesterday it was still NetMundial – I am personally glad they have moved away from that while they figure out what this initiative is. Also at my phone call they wanted to nominate two of the four civil society reps themselves – a couple of US based NGOs they work with regularly – this was identified as an issue and I am glad the CS reps were able to get that changed today. They were also prepared to give us a more reasonable deadline for nominations than originally intended – which would have been the middle of next week! The timetable is still tight (by September 21), but is enough time for us to discuss our levels of involvement and get a process under way at the end of this week. So there are some positive signs. Also the level of CS representation – 4 of a committee of 15 – is quite reasonable. But I do get the feeling that things might continue to change and that there is a great uncertainty about the degree to which the staff assigned to this might be able to obtain strong WEF backing for initiatives – and what those initiatives might be. I suspect others who are at IGF might get to talk further with WEF, and those who were at the Geneva meeting might also have additional perspectives. It would be good to share those perspectives here and on other lists so that we can react appropriately. Ian Peter From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:30 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Dear All, This Tuesday morning, in Istanbul, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group attending the IGF2014 (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, Jeremy Malcolm from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative. This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time. One of the first points that was made in the meeting was that at the WEF they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this. So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicized version of NETmundial. Presumably, many of us will warmly welcome this news. Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this. They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved. The value add of the WEF, they explained, is to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions. The steering committee would include all stakeholders to ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects. They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. The other members would be 3-4 from each one of the following groups: business (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organizations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics. Please note: they confirmed their intention to treat academic community separately to Civil Society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns. The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before. Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that their constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives. WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments. They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged. They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this. Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus. They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. WEF, after our request, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalize. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations probably no later than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process. I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth). The News Release from the live event launching the initiative can be found here: http://www.weforum.org/news/new-initiative-internet-governance-live-event?news=page Warm regards, Mawaki IGC Co-coordinator _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 12:18:10 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:18:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> Message-ID: Hi George, On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion] > > > > Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of > computing and networking, it's not good. The last two efforts, the > committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID > from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to > assist in ICT for Development. Worse, they have spent millions of dollars, > and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the > center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of > more innovative and useful. I would not expect any permanent role for the > IGF within the UN to produce any better results. > Just to make sure I understand you well, isn't the structure and the participatory model of IGF different enough from those two examples you just cited so as to expect different results regardless of the level of institutionalization with the UN? Otherwise stated, are you assuming with your above assertion that an evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would necessarily mean the disappearance of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes? Again and to state it more explicitly, by asking this, I'm not necessarily advocating the creation of a new UN body for IGF. Thanks, Mawaki > > George > > > > > On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart < > nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote: > > > Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever > get abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events. > > > > Just for information. > > > > On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill wrote: > > > >> it is rare to find a human structure that is "permanent", so perhaps, > in this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN. > >> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by > events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes > >> an artifact where zero real work gets done. > >> > >> /bill > >> PO Box 12317 > >> Marina del Rey, CA 90295 > >> 310.322.8102 > >> > >> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > >> > >>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of > improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will > always be in need of evolution. > >>> > >>> jeanette > >>> > >>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill: > >>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is > needed/required/desired. > >>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> /bill > >>>> PO Box 12317 > >>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295 > >>>> 310.322.8102 > >>>> > >>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed > (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt" > attachment(s) for more information. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft > statement on making the IGF permanent. We have sought advice on various > aspects of the document and made the required revisions. Please send your > comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process > tomorrow. The document is also loaded on the pad at > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K > >>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann. > >>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each > of these lists) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments > received so far: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that > projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the > Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could > imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement > but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get > advise from the diplomats @ IGF. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the > UN General Assembly. > >>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement > from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if > we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other > aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, > IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for > it. > >>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We > are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> jeanette > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria: > >>>>>>> (removed cross posting) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping > the text > >>>>>>> relatively brief > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the > >>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires > the > >>>>>>> ability to do longer range planning. I have added some text to > that end. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of > the > >>>>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being > collected > >>>>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 > years. > >>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some > examples can > >>>>>>> be lifted from that effort/report. I am not aware of the progress > being > >>>>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> avri > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little > bit. I support it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wolfgang > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von > Jeanette Hofmann > >>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 > >>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN > >>>>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a > permanent basis. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to > the IGF > >>>>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and > >>>>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> discuss mailing list > >>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org > >>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>>>>> . > >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection > Service > >>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat" > >>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus. > >>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined. > >>>>> > >>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014: > >>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against > Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat) > >>>>> > >>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902 > (message s82F4YpS009135). > >>>>> > >>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it, > >>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If this > >>>>> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> > >>>>> IPC Computing Services > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> discuss mailing list > >>>>> discuss at 1net.org > >>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list > >> discuss at 1net.org > >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA) > > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org > > Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com > > PGP Fingerprint: BFD5 DF7 7 2E D5 8 636 92E7 735 7 07 03 7 727 9B0A > 522 6 > > Skype: nashtonhart > > www.internet-ecosystem.org > > > > One-click digital business card for your address book: > http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > discuss at 1net.org > > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 13:09:22 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:09:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance References: <9F13905BE7DB45DB85300D2170A8096E@Toshiba> Message-ID: <0d0f01cfc6d0$a4a3f720$edebe560$@gmail.com> I should have also noted that a very significant proportion (probably a majority) of those academics/researchers engaged with the Community Informatics network are from Less Developed Countries including a significant component currently based in LDC’s either as academics or as grad students. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 8:21 AM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Ian Peter'; 'fadi.chehade at icann.org'; 'alan.marcus at weforum.org' Cc: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Ian, This may be a side issue for this group but I don’t know where else to direct this. As you know I believe, the NetMundial meeting apparently chose, at least informally to assign the identification of its “academic” component to the GIGAnet group. There was no explanation or rationale given for this of which I am aware and there was no response to the concerns I raised in this regard at the time on behalf of the academic/research component of the Community Informatics community. At the time I pointed out that while the GIGAnet grouping includes many of those with a specific interest/expertise in the more formal and institutional mechanisms and processes of Internet Governance it by no means is inclusive of the broader research/academic community with an overall interest in the governance of the Internet particularly as it might apply to issues of development. It does not to the best of my knowledge include those with for example a specific interest in or expertise in ICT4Development issues where for example those grouped within the Community Informatics network of which I am a part, would probably represent the current largest such grouping. Since the overall intention of the NMI appears to be inclusive of both more formal Internet Governance issues and Development issues as they may pertain to Internet Governance I see no reason for this new initiative to not be rather more inclusive in its identification of its “academic” representation than was NetMundial. I would thus request that the IGC and others of those interacting with the NMI convey this message to them and strongly urge them to ensure an inclusive process for the identification of the academic component of the NMI’s steering committee. Mike Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor: School of Library, Archival and Informations Sciences (iSchool) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CANADA Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: @michaelgurstein From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Just posted this response on Best Bits – also now here FYI Just adding here a couple of perspectives from my earlier phone call - The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid. Yesterday it was still NetMundial – I am personally glad they have moved away from that while they figure out what this initiative is. Also at my phone call they wanted to nominate two of the four civil society reps themselves – a couple of US based NGOs they work with regularly – this was identified as an issue and I am glad the CS reps were able to get that changed today. They were also prepared to give us a more reasonable deadline for nominations than originally intended – which would have been the middle of next week! The timetable is still tight (by September 21), but is enough time for us to discuss our levels of involvement and get a process under way at the end of this week. So there are some positive signs. Also the level of CS representation – 4 of a committee of 15 – is quite reasonable. But I do get the feeling that things might continue to change and that there is a great uncertainty about the degree to which the staff assigned to this might be able to obtain strong WEF backing for initiatives – and what those initiatives might be. I suspect others who are at IGF might get to talk further with WEF, and those who were at the Geneva meeting might also have additional perspectives. It would be good to share those perspectives here and on other lists so that we can react appropriately. Ian Peter From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:30 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] TIME-SENSITIVE: World Economic Forum and their Initiative with Internet Governance Dear All, This Tuesday morning, in Istanbul, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group attending the IGF2014 (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, Jeremy Malcolm from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative. This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time. One of the first points that was made in the meeting was that at the WEF they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this. So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicized version of NETmundial. Presumably, many of us will warmly welcome this news. Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this. They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved. The value add of the WEF, they explained, is to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions. The steering committee would include all stakeholders to ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects. They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. The other members would be 3-4 from each one of the following groups: business (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organizations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics. Please note: they confirmed their intention to treat academic community separately to Civil Society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns. The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before. Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that their constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives. WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments. They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged. They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this. Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus. They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. WEF, after our request, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalize. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations probably no later than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process. I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth). The News Release from the live event launching the initiative can be found here: http://www.weforum.org/news/new-initiative-internet-governance-live-event?news=page Warm regards, Mawaki IGC Co-coordinator _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 15:50:20 2014 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:50:20 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98Freedom_on_the_Net=E2=80=99_New_M?= =?UTF-8?Q?aps?= Message-ID: Dear all, You may be interested to test your ‘Freedom on the Net’ Knowledge at the 2014 Internet Governance Forum Internet Censorship Around The World | IVPN.net (by Madeline Earp, Freedom on the Net) http://bit.ly/1uhpCH7 Malta-based privacy advocates IVPN can help you with an interactive map using the latest data from Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net report. The graphic shows the 60 countries rated Free, Partly Free, or Not Free in 2013. Click through to view details on the restrictions in each location, like blocks on social networks. Regards, -- ​ Narine Khachatryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 16:44:53 2014 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:44:53 +0400 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Watch press release Message-ID: Human Rights Watch issued a press release today Turkey: Internet Freedom, Rights in Sharp Decline Human Rights Watch SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 Press release Turkey’s ruling party has responded to criticism of its policies by escalating Internet censorship and prosecuting social media users. Delegations at the Internet Government Forum shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the Turkish government’s increasingly regressive approach to rights online. by Cynthia Wong, senior Internet researcher (Istanbul) – Turkey , the host of a UN-sponsored Internet forum September 2-5, 2014 in Istanbul, has an abysmal record of protecting free expression online. In recent months, the Turkish government has expanded its powers to censor online content and to monitor Internet activity without independent oversight. The Internet Government Forum (IGF), an annual meeting convened by the United Nations secretary-general, brings together governments, civil society, and others as equal partners to discuss public policy issues related to the Internet. “Turkey’s ruling party has responded to criticism of its policies by escalating Internet censorship and prosecuting social media users,” said Cynthia Wong , senior Internet researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Delegations at the Internet Government Forum shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the Turkish government’s increasingly regressive approach to rights online.” The Turkish government should cease blocking websites and prosecuting social media users and the Constitutional Court should overrule abusive provisions in a new surveillance law, Human Rights Watch said. Turkish authorities have blocked tens of thousands of websites under the country’s draconian Internet Law 5651 over the last few years. The exact number remains unclear since the judicial and administrative procedures for Internet blocking are not transparent. In February, the government passed amendments to the law that expand censorship powers, enabling authorities to block access to web pages within hours, based on a mere allegation that a posting violates private life, without a prior court order. The government has also tried to stifle social media. In the period before the March 30 municipal elections, authorities blocked access to Twitter and YouTube, which have been used to organize protests and call for reform. These actions followed a corruption scandal that erupted when multiple wiretaps of conversations among top officials were leaked via social media. The blanket blocking drew widespread international criticism, including from the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, the European Union, and the United States government. But President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was then the prime minister, vowed to “eradicate Twitter ” and other social media , no matter what the international community might say. Access to Twitter and YouTube were restored in April and June respectively by order of the Constitutional Court, which called the blanket block on Twitter “illegal, arbitrary and a serious restriction on the right to obtain information.” However, YouTube and other social media sites have sometimes been blocked for prolonged periods since 2007. The right to privacy online and offline has also been under threat. In April, Turkey passed a new law that greatly expanded the surveillance powers of the National Intelligence Agency, known by its Turkish acronym MİT (Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı). The law gives the agency sweeping powers to amass private data, documents, and personal information in all forms without a court order. The new law fundamentally undermines the right to privacy by permitting the agency unfettered access to personal data without judicial oversight or review, Human Rights Watch said. Nor does it have any clear limits on the scope of data retention or government access to private data. The law also punishes journalists who might expose abuses by the agency and grants MİT personnel effective immunity from prosecution. The expanded surveillance powers may feed further abusive prosecutions and erode the rule of law, Human Rights Watch said. The Constitutional Court is examining the law in response to a challenge by the main opposition party. The Turkish authorities have also adopted an increasingly restrictive approach to social media users’ online postings with repeated prosecutions that contravene Turkey’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression. In February, for example, 29 people were indicted for inciting riots via Twitter during the May 2013 demonstrations over government plans for construction in the park in Taksim Square. Evidence described in the indictment included tweets that merely relayed information about the Gezi park protests or called for emergency services or other medical aid for protesters. “The IGF embraces robust debate and participation by independent voices in Internet governance,” Wong said. “Yet, the Internet forum’s host this year seems determined to shut down criticism of government policy online.” Turkey’s Efforts to Muzzle the Internet Internet Censorship Internet Law 5651 was enacted in 2007 to regulate Internet and online service providers. Under the law, foreign-hosted websites are subject to blocking if they are suspected to contain eight categories of prohibited content, including child abuse images, content that facilitates drug use, provision of substances dangerous to health, obscenity, prostitution sites, gambling sites, encouragement of suicide, and crimes committed against Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Blocking orders can be issued by courts, public prosecutors as a precautionary injunction, or the Telecommunications Communication Presidency (“TIB”), an administrative entity in the Telecommunications Authority. The TIB is responsible for executing blocking orders and surveillance warrants and monitoring Internet content. In the years since, the law has been used to block LGBT community forums (later unblocked without explanation), independent media websites, and news sites with a pro-Kurdish political line. Several global websites that host large volumes of user-generated content, including YouTube, Twitter, Blogspot, Wordpress, Vimeo, and Google Groups, have been occasionally blocked wholesale, even if only a fraction of the content was deemed subject to blocking. These practices have faced repeated international criticism, including by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s representative on media freedom, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, and the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. In its 2012 Progress Report for Turkey’s Accession to the European Union, the European Commission stated that, “Frequent website bans are a cause for serious concern and there is a need to revise the law on the Internet.” Individuals have filed five separate applications to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the government’s blocking of YouTube, website creation and hosting service Google Sites, and music website Last.fm. In December 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey that the blanket blocking of Google Sites violated the right to freedom of expression. The court found that Internet Law 5651 did not adequately protect against arbitrary or abusive blocking measures. The government has largely ignored the court’s ruling. According to Engelliweb , a nongovernmental website that tracks websites reportedly blocked in Turkey, as of August 2014 over 50,000 websites have been blocked, over twice the number it listed as reportedly blocked in 2012. The February 2014, amendments to the internet law expand the TIB’s powers by allowing the agency to issue administrative blocking orders if any individual or legal entity alleges a privacy violation or if the content is considered “discriminatory or insulting to certain members of society.” Internet service providers have to block access to specific URLs within four hours of receiving an order. Although such blocking orders must be reviewed by a court within 48 hours, the grounds for blocking are so broadly and vaguely defined that they allow discretion for abusive application and interpretation. In addition, although blocking a URL is more targeted than blocking an entire social media site, such blocking may prompt increased use of “deep packet inspection” – that is, to examine the content of Internet traffic transmitted over an Internet network. Such capabilities, which are necessary for URL blocking, also raise serious privacy concerns because they enable mass monitoring and possible tampering with Internet traffic. Media reports have suggested that deep packet inspection is already in use in Turkey. Finally, requests from Turkish authorities to Google and Twitter to take down content deemed objectionable by the government have surged in recent years. According to Twitter’s publicly reported numbers, Twitter received 186 such requests, specifying 304 accounts, to remove content in the first half of 2014, up from seven requests specifying 30 accounts from the same period in 2013. Twitter complied with 30 percent of these requests, in part or in whole. In March, Twitter filed court petitions in Turkey to challenge several of these orders and was successful in overturning two, including one that instructed Twitter to take down an account with tweets that accused a former government official of corruption. Turkish officials have also demanded that Twitter open an office inside the country to make it easier to compel the firm to censor content or hand over information about users, as well as for tax collection purposes. Twitter has stated that it has no current plans to open an office in Turkey. Surveillance, Privacy, and Public Accountability On April 17, parliament passed a new law that greatly increases the powers of Turkey’s National Intelligence Agency, while decreasing government accountability, media freedom, and the right to privacy. The Law Amending the Law on State Intelligence Services and the National Intelligence Agency (Devlet İstihbarat Hizmetleri ve Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı Kanununda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanunu, no. 6532), which entered into force on April 26, amends a 1983 law (no. 2937) defining the activities of MİT. The new law gives the intelligence agency far-reaching powers to collect private data, documents, and information about individuals in all forms from public bodies, banks, archives, companies, and other legal entities, as well as from organizations without legal status. No court order is needed to compel disclosure of personal data or documents. The law makes provision of all such information to MİT obligatory and overrides provisions in any other laws or bylaws limiting the provision of such data. Failure to comply with data requests from the agency could be punishable with a prison sentence. Furthermore, the new law permits the agency to “collect data relating to external intelligence, national defense, terrorism, international crimes, and cyber security passing via telecommunication channels” without specifying the need for a court order. This provision could enable mass interception of Internet traffic or mobile text messages. The law also grants the agency head the authority to intercept calls overseas, and calls by foreigners and on pay phones, and to analyze and store the data. At the same time, the amendments criminalize exposure of abusive surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities, as well as undermine accountability of other agencies that may access data or communications derived from surveillance. The law increases maximum sentences for whistleblowers convicted of leaking information about intelligence activities and MİT personnel. For the first time, it also sets prison sentences – of three to nine years – for journalists and editors who publish or broadcast leaked information or documents “by radio, television, Internet, social media, newspapers, publications, books or all other media and by means of all forms of written, visual, audio and electronic mass communication tools.” The law also makes it more difficult for judicial authorities to hold officials accountable for misusing the law. If a complaint is filed that involves intelligence personnel, the prosecutor would have to notify the head of the intelligence agency. If the intelligence agency “states or documents” that the allegations of wrongdoing were “connected to [MİT] duties and activities,” the investigation would be blocked and the agency employees involved would have immunity. The public prosecutor thus has no authority to initiate direct criminal investigations or subject the agency’s activities to judicial scrutiny in the event of allegations of wrongdoing. Another provision largely prevents agency personnel from testifying on matters related to MİT duties and activities. Combined, these provisions effectively place the intelligence agency above the law and thwart accountability if MİT personnel violate human rights. The agency itself decides when its activities should be investigated or prosecuted, and journalists and whistleblowers are penalized if they publish information about intelligence activities that may be of legitimate public interest. Amendments to Internet law 5651 also raise privacy concerns by imposing a new data retention mandate on hosting providers. Under the revised law, hosting providers must store communications traffic data related to their hosting activities and make it available to the TIB upon request. The amendments do not require a court order or legal process for such requests. Blanket data retention mandates interfere with the right to privacy of all affected individuals, the vast majority of whom will not be suspected of any crime or wrongdoing. The Constitutional Court indicated in July that it would examine the substance of the new National Intelligence Agency law. The court should overrule the law’s abusive surveillance and data collection powers, as well as other provisions granting immunity from prosecution to intelligence personnel and providing for steep prison sentences for journalists publishing leaked intelligence. Regards, -- Narine Khachatryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Sep 2 17:56:16 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:56:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54063D00.90308@wzb.eu> Am 01.09.14 22:42, schrieb Vanda Scartezini: > I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF > totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on > IGF. I am sorry but this is simply not true. The statement does meither intend nor imply this. Please be specific and point out the language in the second draft that would suggest what you are saying. jeanette > Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also > long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, > besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily > report. > Better not to go through this path. > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 > 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil > Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 > Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 > > > > > > > > On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: > >> All, >> >> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >> made by the UN General Assembly. >> >> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >> >> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >> >> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >> >> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >> >> George >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>> other sources. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> I support the call. >>>> >>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>> stable source of funding. >>>> >>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>> body >>>> with institutional funding. >>>> >>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>> measure. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>> >>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>> IGFs. >>>>> >>>>> e >>>>> >>>>> Eduardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agree. >>>>> >>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>> >>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>> inter-alia: >>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>> creative >>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>> policy options; >>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>> IGF, including >>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>> discussions >>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>> discussing both long >>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>> the identification of >>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>> >>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>> >>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>> >>>>> best >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>> >>>>> _ >>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>> >>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>> > escreveu: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi all, >>>>> > >>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>> BB meeting. >>>>> > >>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>> > >>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>> support in civil society. >>>>> > >>>>> > jeanette >>>>> > >>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>> CEO >>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>> @afjellema >>>>> * >>>>> * >>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 18:04:08 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:04:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: George, Thank you for clarification. On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:11 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein: > > Mawaki, > > Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would > make some difference. My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the > UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole > discretion of the UN. > > So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a > "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would > likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up > nature of the IGF processes. I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate > is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their > decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization. > The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement > between the UN and the IGF will alter that. > > Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive > institutions in their own way. My argument is with the IGF going solidly > and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more. I do understand your point and take it for exactly what it is. On the other hand I am skeptical about thinking that there is any way possible IGF would still be IGF without the broad community involvement, participation and ownership that we've come to know with the current IGF. If it were to become fully a (specialized) UN agency just like UNESCO or ITU, mainly based on nation-state membership (with some extension to corporate/ non-UN organizational entities like with ITU), it would lose a lot of the community participation and energy, running the risk to become a duplication of ITU only with a narrower scope, possibly. Which would be a problem for the UN itself (and for ITU, incidentally.) In sum, that would be self-defeating on nearly all accounts, at least. Instead (and as a thought experiment beyond the current statement drafting exercise), I was thinking of the possibility of something hybrid where IGF could retain the UN caché, institutional capacity and type of legitimacy but without the minuses :) whereby the current authority solely held by the UN/UNGA will be shared among a multistakeholder governing body including UN inter pares with ICANN, ISOC, etc. possibly ITU, UNESCO, etc. CS individuals/organizations, Academics, possibly a couple of individual governments, etc. perhaps a total of some 21-25 maximum members for instance (sorry, I don't mean to be exhaustive here, but just to give an idea.) In addition to that there would be a lean Secretariat (the actual entity to be incorporated/registered) that would pretty much looks like the one we've got now but with more support, and an advisory body which would take over from the current MAG. It would be that governing multistakeholder body (not to be incorporated) which will make the highest decisions regarding the IGF including, with the community inputs, whether to discontinue IGF altogether when such time comes as when the Forum is no longer serving its purpose. (A joint meeting with both the governing and the advisory bodies might assume the role of 'general assembly' for this non-profit "Secretariat" reviewing financial accounts and making sure the rules and procedures are followed by the "Secretariat".) Of course the mechanism to appoint the members of the governing body with possible rotations will have to be carefully designed and accepted by the community (rough consensus?). As I said, just a thought experiment reflecting my initial assessment of the situation. Thanks, Mawaki See my response to Michael below for more. > > On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various > lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and > excellent. I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them > completely. > > George > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 19:13:38 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:13:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Does "Able to be constructive" mean you mostly agree. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I personally don't think it means that although the parties may agree in the end, most of the times. In a process like these each party will most likely have to move in their view to various extents, at some points or the other, without necessarily compromising on their basic principles. Often times we are most enlightened by engaging with people who do not agree with us at start, as that brings us to clarify some of our assumptions including possibly to ourselves and thus helps us make our case stronger on its real worth/merit while making it also more understandable to others who may not agree. Anyway, as Ian suggested in the other message in response to my initial post, they have already adjusted in a couple of ways after the CSCG Chair and members got to talk with them. I do not expect the rest to be any different. Hope this answers your question. Mawaki On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Dave Burstein wrote: > the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the > formation of consensus. > > I've looked at their list of leaders and they sure as heck don't resemble > the people who use the Internet. > > THis is about as top-down multi-stakeholder as it gets. > > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> >> This Tuesday morning, in Istanbul, the members of the Internet Governance >> Civil Society Coordination Group attending the IGF2014 (Deirdre Williams >> standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, Jeremy Malcolm from Best Bits, >> Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; >> the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and >> Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in >> nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what >> we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative. This followed on from a >> phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them >> yesterday Istanbul time. >> >> >> >> One of the first points that was made in the meeting was that at the WEF >> they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, >> although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been >> calling it this. So it seems that they will be willing to call it by >> another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicized >> version of NETmundial. Presumably, many of us will warmly welcome this >> news. >> >> >> >> Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly >> consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation >> of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they >> have been listening to pushback about this. They see the initiative as a >> platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has >> identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at >> the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects >> that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" >> might be achieved. >> >> >> >> The value add of the WEF, they explained, is to bring in high-level >> participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of >> Internet governance discussions. The steering committee would include all >> stakeholders to ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the >> Initiative including its projects. They are looking for a committee >> maximum size of about 15 people. The other members would be 3-4 from each >> one of the following groups: business (including at least two >> representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental >> organizations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics. >> Please note: they confirmed their intention to treat academic community >> separately to Civil Society or technical community or any other grouping - >> as per NetMundial and 1net patterns. >> >> >> >> The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the >> civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee >> because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before. Several >> members of our Coordination Group suggested that their constituencies would >> probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering >> committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society >> participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to >> self-appoint all of our own representatives. WEF seemed to accept this >> counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments. >> >> >> >> They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional >> steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the >> responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent >> steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if >> possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged. They did assure us >> that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those >> who required this. >> >> >> >> Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination >> Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist >> on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would >> require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work >> towards the formation of consensus. They said that they would value people >> who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our >> constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make >> (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. >> >> >> >> WEF, after our request, have extended our deadline to submit names >> till September 21 - and there are still some details to finalize. The >> timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations >> probably no later than Friday - the last day of IGF - to allow discussion >> and further clarification before we commence any such process. >> >> >> >> I am posting this to begin such a discussion - others present at the >> meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also >> occur on other lists. >> >> >> >> Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to >> as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included >> Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work ( >> http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth). The News >> Release from the live event launching the initiative can be found here: >> http://www.weforum.org/news/new-initiative-internet-governance-live-event?news=page >> >> >> >> Warm regards, >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> IGC Co-coordinator >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and A Wireless Cloud > Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, > Getting It Noticed (Peachpit) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Sep 2 20:55:33 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:25:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54063D00.90308@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <54063D00.90308@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Any organization with permanent UN funding will doubtless have the usual strings attached is her point I think. I seriously doubt it would be easy to score a permanent grant of UN money with the potential for a future IGF to be held in, say, Taipei. --srs (iPad) > On 03-Sep-2014, at 3:26, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Am 01.09.14 22:42, schrieb Vanda Scartezini: >> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >> IGF. > > I am sorry but this is simply not true. The statement does meither intend nor imply this. Please be specific and point out the language in the second draft that would suggest what you are saying. > > jeanette > > >> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >> report. >> Better not to go through this path. >> Vanda Scartezini >> Polo Consultores Associados >> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>> >>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>> >>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>> >>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>> >>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>> other sources. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support the call. >>>>> >>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>> body >>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>> >>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>> measure. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>> >>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>> >>>>>> e >>>>>> >>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Agree. >>>>>> >>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>> >>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>> creative >>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>> policy options; >>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>> discussions >>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>> the identification of >>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>> >>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>> >>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>> >>>>>> _ >>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>> > >>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- -- >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>>> CEO >>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>>> @afjellema >>>>>> * >>>>>> * >>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Sep 2 21:14:46 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:44:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6BDB688F-D304-43C5-9D27-22A7DAAE8938@hserus.net> That setup is practically impossible, Mawaki. Too many interests pulling in multiple different directions. The fact that IGF is entirely unofficial and funded the same way - project based - that the UN funds assorted civil society groups, external consultants hired to write white papers, and outreach efforts, makes it entirely non threatening from a policy POV, a "talk shop" as I have heard it called more than once. Operationalize it, and get a formal oversight structure with organizational rather than individual membership, and you just changed the game, lots. --srs (iPad) > On 03-Sep-2014, at 3:34, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > George, > > Thank you for clarification. > >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:11 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein: >> >> Mawaki, >> >> Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would make some difference. My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole discretion of the UN. >> >> So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes. I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization. The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement between the UN and the IGF will alter that. >> >> Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive institutions in their own way. My argument is with the IGF going solidly and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more. > > I do understand your point and take it for exactly what it is. On the other hand I am skeptical about thinking that there is any way possible IGF would still be IGF without the broad community involvement, participation and ownership that we've come to know with the current IGF. If it were to become fully a (specialized) UN agency just like UNESCO or ITU, mainly based on nation-state membership (with some extension to corporate/ non-UN organizational entities like with ITU), it would lose a lot of the community participation and energy, running the risk to become a duplication of ITU only with a narrower scope, possibly. Which would be a problem for the UN itself (and for ITU, incidentally.) In sum, that would be self-defeating on nearly all accounts, at least. > > Instead (and as a thought experiment beyond the current statement drafting exercise), I was thinking of the possibility of something hybrid where IGF could retain the UN caché, institutional capacity and type of legitimacy but without the minuses :) whereby the current authority solely held by the UN/UNGA will be shared among a multistakeholder governing body including UN inter pares with ICANN, ISOC, etc. possibly ITU, UNESCO, etc. CS individuals/organizations, Academics, possibly a couple of individual governments, etc. perhaps a total of some 21-25 maximum members for instance (sorry, I don't mean to be exhaustive here, but just to give an idea.) In addition to that there would be a lean Secretariat (the actual entity to be incorporated/registered) that would pretty much looks like the one we've got now but with more support, and an advisory body which would take over from the current MAG. It would be that governing multistakeholder body (not to be incorporated) which will make the highest decisions regarding the IGF including, with the community inputs, whether to discontinue IGF altogether when such time comes as when the Forum is no longer serving its purpose. (A joint meeting with both the governing and the advisory bodies might assume the role of 'general assembly' for this non-profit "Secretariat" reviewing financial accounts and making sure the rules and procedures are followed by the "Secretariat".) Of course the mechanism to appoint the members of the governing body with possible rotations will have to be carefully designed and accepted by the community (rough consensus?). > > As I said, just a thought experiment reflecting my initial assessment of the situation. > Thanks, > > Mawaki > >> See my response to Michael below for more. >> >> On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and excellent. I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them completely. >> >> George > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 00:36:26 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:36:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello all, i give full supoort on this wonderfull initiative. According my agenda, I trust to all contribution and will be ready to sign final document. 2014-09-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 Jeanette Hofmann : > Hi all, > > Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN Secretary > to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis. > > About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF > and from the NetMundial Statement. > > Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and perhaps > get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. > > Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. > > We have set up a pad for editing: > > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K > > For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. > > The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. > > Stephanie and Jeanette > > > > Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of the > IGF > > > In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis > Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy > dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph > 72, Tunis Agenda) > The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to > key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in > the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, > security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and > developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, > mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a > neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement > in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. > The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with > Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth > session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, > underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the > broader dialogue on global Internet governance”. > In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN > Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a > place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and > international organizations discuss important questions of economic and > social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a > common understanding of the Internet’s great potential. > > > The Secretary-General recommended that > (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a > further five years; > (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member > States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the > outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; > > Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the > preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for > development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New > York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) > The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in > the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there > is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important > recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working > group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a > strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long > standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the > identification of possible ways to address them.” > > Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing > development of Internet governance, we request the UN Secretary General to > establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum. We also request > that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to > strengthen its structure and processes. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Sep 3 01:13:16 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:13:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <54063D00.90308@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20140903051315.GB8830@tarvainen.info> On Sep 03 06:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: > Any organization with permanent UN funding will doubtless have the > usual strings attached is her point I think. I seriously doubt it > would be easy to score a permanent grant of UN money with the > potential for a future IGF to be held in, say, Taipei. That is probably true, but a longer mandate (even if not "permanent"), say 10 years, and at least one decided well in advance rather than at the last minute as usual would also make it easier for other potential donors (notably some governments) to fund IGF. That said, I don't see any chance whatsoever for permanent IGF mandate after the current one expires, even 10 years extension is very unlikely. Most likely it'll be another 5 years and even that decided only in December 2015 or something like that. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 3 02:34:13 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:34:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org> <8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu> Hi Carolina, hi all, we see positive responses for the statement # 1 from various organizations including governments. There are chances that, more or less by accident, we produce an outcome at this year's IGF that has been co-authored by two civil society individuals. There has been very little feedback from civil society so far. It would be good if the groups in favor of making the IGF more outcome orientied would have a look at the statement and let us know by tomorrow if they are able to endorse it or not. As I said yesterday, we will do minor changes later today but the basic content is stable by now. I hope I don't sound too pushy but of course our minds are all busy with the workshops and other sessions we are involved in this week. So I am merely trying to get attention and compete with all your other tasks throughout the IGF. jeanette Am 02.09.14 15:37, schrieb Carolina Rossini: > and regarding Jeremy's question: > > my suggestion > > (a) regarding statement (1) - let organizations decide by themselves. I > do not think we have time for consensus and I agree it is getting > tricky, since dealing with other issues beyond the clear BB consensus. > But Jeannete is still looking for suggestions in developing it. > > (b) regarding statement (2) - it still needs work. And yes, I agree it > should be in the BB for members to sign it. And definitely Burcu could > refer to it. > > (c) regarding statement 3 - it is an interesting idea to "recording 3 on > the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at > http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014 " BUT we also have the meeting > report to look for inputs for it. The report has been consolidated and > already shared with the steering committee. I am waiting for the SC to > comment (deadline today), so we can re-consolidate and send to all at > BB. So we may want to wait to put anything up for a while and also give > more time for folks to add and review it without rush. > > Cheers, > > C > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > and BB's text as of now with comments: > > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y > > -- sign-on statement (these can also be notes for Burcu's closing > address?) > > We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits > Network, re-emphasise that human rights and development are > underlying concerns for all internet governance processes and > mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular > call for: (and then the specific demands below) > > 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom > of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in > relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore > BestBits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum > and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to > human rights. > > (Brett: I fully support the statement but think that the reference > to the Turkish environment above should come as the final stand > alone point after the 5 substantive points below) > > 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a > permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the United > Nations, that should be reformed and strengthened. > > 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF > post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order > to look at potential changes that could lead to its further > strengthening. > > 4 . We support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of > the Internet - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for > the IGF, but express concerns about the number of new processes > which civil society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF > (Carol's comment: this part locks weird.."express concerns to be > invited"??!!! many times CS complains it was not invited and now it > is comparing it is being invited?! ah!. Ok, we need to rephrase this > concern. It is more about "distractions that do not add value..." > than about "being invited" . So I suggest: "but express concerns > about the number of parallel initiatives that might distract > stakeholders from process where the added value is clear") .and call > for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues. > > 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set > in its outcome document by, for example, focusing on netneutrality > and ask the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to > build on this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national > IGFs as core opportunities that feed into this process. > > 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities > (Carol's comment: suggest listing them) to ensure that stakeholders > interests and views are heard and taken into account. > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Kevin Bankston > > wrote: > > Jeremy, you are a treasure. Thank you for clarifying matters. > _____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Policy Director, Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > > On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy > wrote: > > > >> Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best > Bits meeting > >> earlier this week for a statement on the IGF. > >> Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft > statement which is > >> in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y > >> The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean > version starting > >> at line 325. > >> Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any > edits can be > >> made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of > Thursday > >> Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday. > > > > So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements: > > > > 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be > a *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0] > > > > 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line > 325 which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF > extension and other issues.[1] > > > > 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the > establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum > within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and > strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus* > outcome of our Best BIts meeting. > > > > MY QUESTION: > > > > It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits > website for individual endorsement as per our usual practice. > But what happens with 1 and 3? I suggest recording 3 on the > "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at > http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014. But what would be an > appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support > for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus > that we reached on 3)? > > > > > > [0] Current full text below: > > > > In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General > in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) > > > > The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues > relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those > enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the > sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development > of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum > was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, > institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a > neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no > involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. > > > > The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to > examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in > formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years > of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the > General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, > underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking > it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”. > > > > In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance > Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was > unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil > society, the private sector and international organizations > discuss important questions of economic and social development. > They share their insights and achievements and build a common > understanding of the Internet’s great potential. > > > > The Secretary-General recommended that > > (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be > extended for a further five years; > > (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again > by Member > > States within the context of a 10-year review of > implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the > Information Society in 2015; > > > > Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of > the preliminary list*, Information and communications > technologies for development, Economic and Social Council, > Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, > Agenda item 13 (b)**) > > > > The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, > stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April > 24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet > Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end > had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF > improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a > strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing > both long standing and emerging issues with a view to > contributing to the identification of possible ways to address > them.” > > > > In 2016 it will have been ten years since the establishment > of IGF. We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has > proven its worth. (content here on why) We think it is time to > build on the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN > initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate > and reliable financial support. These two goals are > interrelated. To address the need for sustainable funding, the > Internet Governance Forum Support Association > (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014. The goal of > this non-profit is to support and promote sustainable funding > for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing > funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the > IGF are essential in creating the strengthened IGF the Internet > community needs in order to continues its work for the global > Internet development goals. > > > > Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for > the continuing development of Internet governance and based on > success of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request > the UN Secretary General to establish the IGF as an ongoing > (permanent) forum. We believe that the IGF should move beyond > its initiation phase where repeated renewal by the UN General > assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range > planning for its continuing and evolving work. We also request > that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its > stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes in the > spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation. > > > > > > [1] Current full text below: > > > > We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits > Network, re-emphasise that human rights and development are > underlying concerns for all internet governance processes and > mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in > particular call for: (and then the specific demands below) > > > > 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for > freedom of expression and access to information in Turkey, > especially in relation to internet filtering and blocking of > content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the > Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society > organizations to address this threat to human rights. > > > > 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent > multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that > should be reformed and strengthened. > > > > 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF > post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to > look at potential changes that could lead to its further > strengthening. > > > > 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the > IGF, but express concerns about the number of new processes > which civil society is being asked to be involved outside of the > IGF and call for it to continue as the key forum for internet > governance issues. > > > > 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial > roadmap by, for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the > MAG and UNDESA and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to > build on this, and to use regional and national IGFs as part of > this process. > > > > 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review > modalities to ensure that stakeholders interests and views are > heard and taken into account. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > /Carolina Rossini / > /Vice President, International Policy/ > *Public Knowledge* > _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_ > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > > > -- > -- > /Carolina Rossini / > /Vice President, International Policy/ > *Public Knowledge* > _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_ > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 3 01:35:06 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:05:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <20140903051315.GB8830@tarvainen.info> References: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <54063D00.90308@wzb.eu> <20140903051315.GB8830@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <3603B99F-5C6D-4013-B9EA-47B3910D05C0@hserus.net> I agree with you here. --srs (iPad) > On 03-Sep-2014, at 10:43, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> On Sep 03 06:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: >> >> Any organization with permanent UN funding will doubtless have the >> usual strings attached is her point I think. I seriously doubt it >> would be easy to score a permanent grant of UN money with the >> potential for a future IGF to be held in, say, Taipei. > > That is probably true, but a longer mandate (even if not "permanent"), > say 10 years, and at least one decided well in advance rather than at > the last minute as usual would also make it easier for other potential > donors (notably some governments) to fund IGF. > > That said, I don't see any chance whatsoever for permanent > IGF mandate after the current one expires, even 10 years > extension is very unlikely. Most likely it'll be another 5 years > and even that decided only in December 2015 or something like that. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 01:50:03 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:50:03 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> <5405D9B8.5050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi This has been reported and commented on a number of times but I guess it just doesn’t fit some preferred narratives. WEF has been very clear in print and in word that they do not intend to stick their nose into norm-setting, they know they can have no hope of contributing there and it would get chopped off. The idea has always been to carry forward on some projects where where mobilized resources would be required. These were mostly mentioned (albeit vaguely) in the panel report and in two cases in the NM outcome doc. It’s reasonable to debate whether these are potentially useful projects, whether WEF is an appropriate platform on which to bring people together to work on them, whether the people doing them are the right ones, what kind of outreach and inclusion would be needed for the ms oversight committees and public input mechanisms etc., but debating things they have said clearly they will not be doing just seems unproductive. BIll On Sep 2, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:52 PM, parminder wrote: > it is about institutionalising something that is supposed to crystallise the spirit (variously interpreted) of Net Mundial, as a/ the key global IG process. > > Parminder, I'm not sure this is right ... it's very hard to read the tea leaves, but after listening to everything that was said in Geneva, I honestly don't think that WEF has much appetite to become or convene a norm-setting institution on IG with all of the (time-consuming, tiresome - from WEF's perspective) negotiation, consensus-building that evidently entails. I think the aim is to parachute quickly in with "action partnerships" that they hope will *indirectly* build developing country support for the multi-stakeholder approach. > > But in any case, I think I'm in agreement with you that the WEF initiative should not be allowed to appropriate any special status or aspirations in the IG realm - least of all by civil society. > > Best > Anne > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Sep 3 02:24:32 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:24:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN_un-accountability - an opportunity Message-ID: ICANN_un-accountability-an_opportunity.pdf another transition. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 140831-ICANN_un-accountability-an_opportunity.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ymshana2003 at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 03:57:15 2014 From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:57:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent Message-ID: <79uoae51qrcio9cnaa4vjdf0.1409731035170@email.android.com> Thank you for sharing this draft. I have only One comment: The request should include a 'Statement on Achievements and Developments by the IGF to date' in order to justify the request. That is all for now. Yassin Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Baudouin Schombe Date:03/09/2014 06:36 (GMT+02:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeanette Hofmann Cc: discuss at 1net.org,Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent Hello all, i give full supoort on this wonderfull initiative. According my agenda, I trust to all contribution and will be ready to sign final document. 2014-09-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 Jeanette Hofmann : Hi all, Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis. About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement. Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. We have set up a pad for editing: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. Stephanie and Jeanette Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of the IGF In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”. In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations discuss important questions of economic and social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential. The Secretary-General recommended that (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a further five years; (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.” Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN Secretary General to  establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum.  We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN REPRESENTANT TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com skype                 : b.schombe blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 3 07:00:11 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:00:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) Message-ID: <20140903130011.21096cdb@swan.bollow.ch> For transparency on a key position taken by JNC in CSCG, and with the idea to possibly also inspire discussion on this question in IGC and BestBits which doesn't seem to started here yet... Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:54:39 +0200 From: Norbert Bollow Subject: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:13:54 +1000 "Ian Peter" wrote: > Tuesday September 2 ASAP after 8am - report to member groups and open > discussion focussed on whether we should participate and if so under > what conditions. After some very intense discussions, the current JNC view is that CSCG as such should not be doing selections for WEF's initiative (whatever it ends up being called.) The reasoning is as follows: * It is fine for WEF or any other business group or anyone really to create an initiative in any way they like, with themselves in the steering seat, as long as they don't explicitly or implicitly claim it to be a multistakeholder initiative. * Changing the name of WEF's “Netmundial Initiative” to something else, for example the idea of “Net World” that WEF mentioned, it a good and positive step but that's not likely to result in a very deep and profound change in how the initiative is perceived and framed now that it has made a big splash under the “Netmundial Initiative” name, unless it is also clearly rebranded as an initiative of a business community as opposed to a multistakeholder initiative. An initiative of a business community can of course still invite some civil society people to participate in a sense of advising them, that is perfectly fine. They can invite some whom they already know, and/or if they then still have gaps, I would in my personal capacity be happy to make suggestions about who else they might consider to invite. * However CSCG should not be involved in making selections of civil society representatives for a “steering committee” which really has only an advisory capacity while the real decision making authority remains in the hands of WEF and its business members. This is in contrast the (real) NetMundial process where it was the multistakeholder committees which had the decision-making authority to steer the process. We should not involve CSCG in a way would contribute to creating the false impression of WEF's initiative being the same kind of multistakeholder activity. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 3 08:13:20 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:13:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9696A3E0-1E75-4D70-9A7B-F69D1CF06CBC@cafonso.ca> As if UN funds were spontaneously generated, given by a bunch of neutral high-priests or came from Mars... and thus remaining immune from gov or business influence? --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 02/09/2014, at 00:38, parminder wrote: > > > If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. > > It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. > > parminder > > >> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF >> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on >> IGF. >> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also >> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government, >> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily >> report. >> Better not to go through this path. >> Vanda Scartezini >> Polo Consultores Associados >> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is >>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions >>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions >>> made by the UN General Assembly. >>> >>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a >>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006) >>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the >>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he >>> showed up so that he could be denied admission. >>> >>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was >>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to >>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This >>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code >>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone. >>> >>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are >>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of. >>> >>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are >>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, >>> bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not >>> increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN >>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming >>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from >>>> other sources. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support the call. >>>>> >>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional >>>>> funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and >>>>> stable source of funding. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally >>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated >>>>> body >>>>> with institutional funding. >>>>> >>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some >>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by >>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a >>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, >>>>> measure. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would >>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems >>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate. >>>>>> >>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for >>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it >>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps >>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable >>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial >>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF >>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional >>>>>> IGFs. >>>>>> >>>>>> e >>>>>> >>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Agree. >>>>>> >>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF: >>>>>> >>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the >>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested >>>>>> that these recommendations will be >>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include >>>>>> inter-alia: >>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including >>>>>> creative >>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of >>>>>> policy options; >>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; >>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the >>>>>> IGF, including >>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential; >>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide >>>>>> discussions >>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. >>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for >>>>>> discussing both long >>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to >>>>>> the identification of >>>>>> possible ways to address them." >>>>>> >>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the >>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for >>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years." >>>>>> >>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support >>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can. >>>>>> >>>>>> _ >>>>>> João Carlos Caribé >>>>>> (021) 8761 1967 >>>>>> (021) 4042 7727 >>>>>> Skype joaocaribe >>>>>> Enviado via iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>> > escreveu: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a >>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a >>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another >>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years. >>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the >>>>>> BB meeting. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement >>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the >>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a >>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments >>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be >>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante >>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all >>>>>> inclusive statement.) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of >>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration >>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the >>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to >>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >>>>>> support in civil society. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > jeanette >>>>>> > >>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. >>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would >>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it? >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- -- >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anne Jellema >>>>>> CEO >>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>>>>> @afjellema >>>>>> * >>>>>> * >>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>>>>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed Sep 3 08:21:55 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:21:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> Jeremy Malcolm [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]: > Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent mandate of the IGF I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its mandate before we call for it to be made permanent. For instance: * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world? * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet? * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant bodies? If so, which issues and which bodies? * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their purview? If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this interfacing? I believe that stability of the IGF is very important. However, I think for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF permanent. I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing stability to the IGF than making it permanent would. Apologies for sounding an off-note. Regards, Pranesh Jeanette Hofmann [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]: > Hi all, > > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing > its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. > > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able > to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical > community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a > statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days > available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an > all inclusive statement.) > > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only > an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, > with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your > opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find > support in civil society. > > jeanette > > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 08:36:28 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:36:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <54070B4C.9040805@mail.utoronto.ca> Pranesh, I think you are voicing concerns that we have heard from both govt and business. Frankly, we are asking for a ten year stable mandate, not "permanence" to enable long range projects and investment. WE do not want to go back begging for a renewal in five years. We are unlikely to be able to establish a permanent body at the UN, but we can do a lot to stabilize and strengthen the IGF using this approach. Thanks Stephanie Perrin On 2014-09-03, 8:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]: >> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the >> permanent mandate of the IGF > > I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. > Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. > > The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should > push for accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really > going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA > contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, > though the analogy is not perfect). I would support making the > evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative > and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > > I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its > mandate before we call for it to be made permanent. For instance: > > * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the > stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world? > * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from > the use and misuse of the Internet? > * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant > bodies? If so, which issues and which bodies? > * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under > their purview? If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited > from this interfacing? > > I believe that stability of the IGF is very important. However, I > think for stability to be achieved it is far more important to > strengthen the IGF processes, making it more important, getting it > (and people who wish to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than > to make the IGF permanent. I believe these (especially having a > 5/10-year mandate and finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a > great deal more to bringing stability to the IGF than making it > permanent would. > > Apologies for sounding an off-note. > > Regards, > Pranesh > > > Jeanette Hofmann [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]: >> Hi all, >> >> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that >> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing >> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >> >> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other >> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able >> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a >> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days >> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an >> all inclusive statement.) >> >> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only >> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, >> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your >> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >> support in civil society. >> >> jeanette >> >> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email >> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Sep 3 09:15:08 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:15:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5407145C.90701@apc.org> Dear all This is an excellent initiative. I have not read all the comments.. my apologies. Too busy here are the IGF. These few comments are what struck me when I read the statement: 1) Summary of the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda. The summary omits several really key point from the TA IGF mandate. I would suggest either quoting the entire agenda, or making the summary more comprehensive, or just referencing it. It is short so my preference would be to quote the full text. On 02/09/2014 17:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft > statement on making the IGF permanent. We have sought advice on > various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. > Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and > formal approval process tomorrow. The document is also loaded on the > pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K > Kind regards, > Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann. > On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each >> of these lists) >> >> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments >> received so far: >> >> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects >> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the >> Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request >> could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for. >> >> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but >> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get >> advise from the diplomats @ IGF. >> >> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN >> General Assembly. >> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from >> the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even >> if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce >> outcomes) >> >> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects >> such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF >> >> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style >> >> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate >> >> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF >> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support >> for it. >> Statement should be read in the closing session? >> >> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are >> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this. >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> (removed cross posting) >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start. >>> >>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the >>> text >>> relatively brief >>> >>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the >>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the >>> ability to do longer range planning. I have added some text to that >>> end. >>> >>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the >>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected >>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years. >>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some >>> examples can >>> be lifted from that effort/report. I am not aware of the progress >>> being >>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point. >>> >>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. >>>> I support it. >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette >>>> Hofmann >>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 >>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a >>>> permanent basis. >>>> >>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the >>>> IGF >>>> and from the NetMundial Statement. >>>> >>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >>>> >>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >>>> >>>> We have set up a pad for editing: >>>> >>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >>>> >>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >>>> >>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >>>> >>>> Stephanie and Jeanette >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 3 10:04:09 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:04:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. > Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. > > The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for > accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to help > accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has > helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). > I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) > more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". Agree with Pranash --MM -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Sep 3 10:06:05 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:06:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <5407145C.90701@apc.org> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <5407145C.90701@apc.org> Message-ID: <5407204D.6000501@apc.org> Apologies all.. this message was sent before I completed it. Let me start again. Dear all This is an excellent initiative. I have not read all the comments.. my apologies. Too busy here are the IGF. These few comments are what struck me when I read the statement: 1) Summary of the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda. The summary omits several really key point from the TA IGF mandate. I would suggest either quoting the entire agenda, or making the summary more comprehensive, or just referencing it. It is short so my preference would be to quote the full text. 2) Where we reference national and regional IGFs could we say that most of these involved the active support and participation of UN member states? 3) Can we get to the point of the recommendation earlier in the text? Background can follow later. 4) I am not sure we should give this option in this way:If this is impossible given current UN rules and regulations, we would recommend a stable ten year extension, to enable longer-range commitments and financial planning. I suggest we just leave it. All for now and apologies for not being able to read and comment on everyone's comments. Anriette On 03/09/2014 15:15, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > This is an excellent initiative. > > I have not read all the comments.. my apologies. Too busy here are the > IGF. > > These few comments are what struck me when I read the statement: > > 1) Summary of the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda. The summary omits > several really key point from the TA IGF mandate. I would suggest > either quoting the entire agenda, or making the summary more > comprehensive, or just referencing it. It is short so my preference > would be to quote the full text. > > > On 02/09/2014 17:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft >> statement on making the IGF permanent. We have sought advice on >> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. >> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and >> formal approval process tomorrow. The document is also loaded on the >> pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >> Kind regards, >> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann. >> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each >>> of these lists) >>> >>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments >>> received so far: >>> >>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that >>> projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we >>> ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a >>> request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for. >>> >>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement >>> but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need >>> to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF. >>> >>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the >>> UN General Assembly. >>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from >>> the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even >>> if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to >>> produce outcomes) >>> >>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects >>> such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF >>> >>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style >>> >>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate >>> >>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF >>> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support >>> for it. >>> Statement should be read in the closing session? >>> >>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We >>> are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria: >>>> (removed cross posting) >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start. >>>> >>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the >>>> text >>>> relatively brief >>>> >>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the >>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the >>>> ability to do longer range planning. I have added some text to >>>> that end. >>>> >>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the >>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected >>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 >>>> years. >>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some >>>> examples can >>>> be lifted from that effort/report. I am not aware of the progress >>>> being >>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point. >>>> >>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. >>>>> I support it. >>>>> >>>>> wolfgang >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette >>>>> Hofmann >>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46 >>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a >>>>> permanent basis. >>>>> >>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to >>>>> the IGF >>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement. >>>>> >>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >>>>> >>>>> We have set up a pad for editing: >>>>> >>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >>>>> >>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >>>>> >>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discuss mailing list >>>> discuss at 1net.org >>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 3 10:21:24 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:21:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20140903142124.GA7457@hserus.net> +1 Milton L Mueller [03/09/14 14:04 +0000]: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. >> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to help >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > >Agree with Pranash >--MM >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 12:08:01 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:08:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> I agree with Prakesh also. George On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. >> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to help >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > > Agree with Pranash > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 12:09:43 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:09:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement Message-ID: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF mandate. We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries. Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for signature tomorrow morning. We are looking for a suitable platform to put the document up for signature, suggestions welcome. Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with everyone! Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended mandate of the Internet Governance Forum5.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 135475 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 3 12:57:39 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:57:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> My cent: Split the difference. Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF; coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons. Everyone's a winner. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of George Sadowsky Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent I agree with Prakesh also. George On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. >> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to help >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > > Agree with Pranash > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 13:31:40 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:31:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement In-Reply-To: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <132f01cfc79c$ecb71200$c6253600$@gmail.com> While in general being mildly supportive of a continuation of the IGF I have considerable reservations about the current organization/governance of the IGF including and particularly the procedures for the selection of the membership of the MAG; the mandate of the MAG and the procedures (and governance structures) if any, for its "evolution"; the appointment procedures, and roles and responsibilities of the UN appointees with respect to the IGF either in a supervisory, advisory or consultants role with the IGF; among other issues. Perhaps this has been covered in the discussion to date or there are documents concerning the IGF/MAG with which I am not familiar but based on my own observations over several years there would seem to be some actual and potential issues concerning the current IGF which would need to be addressed presumably as part of a decision with respect to "IGF permanency/continuity", in whatever form that might take. Without apparently even making an allusion to some of these issues it is hard to see how one could support this "statement". Mike -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:10 AM To: Best Bits; 1Net Discuss; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: [bestbits] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF mandate. We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries. Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for signature tomorrow morning. We are looking for a suitable platform to put the document up for signature, suggestions welcome. Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with everyone! Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 13:38:48 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:38:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement In-Reply-To: <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> Message-ID: Thank you Stephanie, Jeanette and all who have been diligently working on this to make it an IGF 2014 outcome. Yes, I tried to mention this on the pad but I see that is not included here. Even nowadays, the UN indulge in crowdsourcing so I think they will understand the idea that there are remote/online participants that are initial signatories to this call. So I suggest to add a phrase (as I did on the pad version) to the "undersigned participants at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul" reflecting the involvement and early endorsement by members of the Internet global multistakeholder community (not present in Istanbul). Unless you intend to hand over to UN officials a physical copy of the letter right on the spot with handwritten signatures on it. In addition to that, I've spotted a couple typos in the text and thought I might as well send out a markup version as attached. Thanks again, Mawaki On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > Replace > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all > stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants at the > 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of the its mandate which is > open-ended, as soon as possible. This letter will remain open for > signature until November 1, 2014. > > to > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all > stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants of the > 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is extended as soon as possible to be > open-ended. > > This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014. > > > > > > Christian > NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant. > > Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF > mandate. We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that > many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries. > Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and > I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for > signature tomorrow morning. We are looking for a suitable platform to put > the document up for signature, suggestions welcome. > Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with > everyone! > Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > -- > Christian de Larrinaga > FBCS, CITP, MCMA > ------------------------- > @ FirstHand > ------------------------- > +44 7989 386778 > cdel at firsthand.net > ------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended mandate of the IGF_proposed-edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22120 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Sep 3 13:43:51 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:13:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits meeting. The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being drafted. I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC should have the correct background information as well. Thanks and best, Anja On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight wrote: > My cent: > > Split the difference. > > Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation > in IGF; > > coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the > -annual - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons. > > Everyone's a winner. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org < > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky < > george.sadowsky at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM > To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent > > I agree with Prakesh also. > > George > > > On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. > >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. > >> > >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should > push for > >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to > help > >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be > renewable has > >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not > perfect). > >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's > term) > >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > > > > Agree with Pranash > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 14:01:19 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:01:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I fully agree with Pranesh and Seun here. While supporting the current call for open-ended mandate (time-wise) for the IGF, I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything else shall remain the same, and maybe we should make that clear in the statement? Could someone come up with a sentence or two to include in the cross-stakeholder statement in the next hour or two? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits > meeting. > > The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a > permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or > long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the > language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the > cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency and > accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be > strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a > suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being > drafted. > Anja, why wouldn't you make the same suggestion to the drafters of the cross-stakeholder statement? In any event, I think we should agree that we need to start a process addressing questions such as those raised by Pranesh and Seun for a reformed IGF in its second decade (the IGF 2.0, if you will) shortly after the Istanbul meeting in order to have other recommendations follow the extension one, to that effect. Thanks and best, Mawaki > > I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to > the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation > has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC > should have the correct background information as well. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Sep 3 14:09:37 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:39:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mawaki and all, My responses below: On 3 September 2014 23:31, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I fully agree with Pranesh and Seun here. > While supporting the current call for open-ended mandate (time-wise) for > the IGF, I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything else shall remain > the same, and maybe we should make that clear in the statement? Could > someone come up with a sentence or two to include in the cross-stakeholder > statement in the next hour or two? > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits >> meeting. >> >> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a >> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or >> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the >> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the >> cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). >> > [Anja] Correction: I see that in the final version of the cross-stakeholder group, which was circulated only a little while ago, there has been an attempt to now address this as well. Thanks for all your work on this, Jeanette and Stephanie. > Transparency and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs >> to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a >> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being >> drafted. >> > > Anja, why wouldn't you make the same suggestion to the drafters of the > cross-stakeholder statement? > [Anja] Because I had mentioned this on the BB list earlier, and my assumption was that if it wasn't included in the draft, then this was likely because other stakeholder groups did not agree. Glad to see that that assumption was mistaken. In any event, I think we should agree that we need to start a process > addressing questions such as those raised by Pranesh and Seun for a > reformed IGF in its second decade (the IGF 2.0, if you will) shortly after > the Istanbul meeting in order to have other recommendations follow the > extension one, to that effect. > [Anja] +1. Best, Anja > Thanks and best, > > Mawaki > >> >> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to >> the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation >> has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC >> should have the correct background information as well. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 15:56:19 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:56:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement In-Reply-To: <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> Message-ID: <54077263.8080602@mail.utoronto.ca> THanks, very helpful, it reads better. It was a long day.... Stephanie On 2014-09-03, 12:36, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > Replace > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for > all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned > participants at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of the > its mandate which is open-ended, as soon as possible. This letter > will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014. > > > to > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for > all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned > participants of the 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is extended as > soon as possible to be open-ended. > > This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014. > > > > > Christian > NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant. > > Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF >> mandate. We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic >> that many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including >> countries. Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc >> Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their input prior to the opening >> of the document for signature tomorrow morning. We are looking for a >> suitable platform to put the document up for signature, suggestions >> welcome. >> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with >> everyone! >> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- > Christian de Larrinaga > FBCS, CITP, MCMA > ------------------------- > @ FirstHand > ------------------------- > +44 7989 386778 > cdel at firsthand.net > ------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 16:09:51 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:09:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement In-Reply-To: References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> Message-ID: <5407758F.8090401@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks so much Mawaki, I thought I had copied the latest version from the pad but maybe I missed your comments, so sorry! It has been a pretty hairy day of drafting, and we worked a lot of the time in word because the internet is quite unreliable here at the conference and we could not reach the pad.... ANd thanks for the mark up copy, this is great. Cheers Stephanie On 2014-09-03, 13:38, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thank you Stephanie, Jeanette and all who have been diligently working > on this to make it an IGF 2014 outcome. > Yes, I tried to mention this on the pad but I see that is not included > here. Even nowadays, the UN indulge in crowdsourcing so I think they > will understand the idea that there are remote/online participants > that are initial signatories to this call. So I suggest to add a > phrase (as I did on the pad version) to the "undersigned participants > at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul" reflecting the involvement and early > endorsement by members of the Internet global multistakeholder > community (not present in Istanbul). Unless you intend to hand over to > UN officials a physical copy of the letter right on the spot with > handwritten signatures on it. > > In addition to that, I've spotted a couple typos in the text and > thought I might as well send out a markup version as attached. > Thanks again, > > Mawaki > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Christian de Larrinaga > > wrote: > > Replace > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum > for all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned > participants at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of > the its mandate which is open-ended, as soon as possible. This > letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014. > > > to > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum > for all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned > participants of the 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is > extended as soon as possible to be open-ended. > > This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014. > > > > > Christian > NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant. > > Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the >> IGF mandate. We have engaged in many consultations and are >> optimistic that many different stakeholders will sign on, >> possibly including countries. Please return any comments to me >> directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their >> input prior to the opening of the document for signature tomorrow >> morning. We are looking for a suitable platform to put the >> document up for signature, suggestions welcome. >> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work >> with everyone! >> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- > Christian de Larrinaga > FBCS, CITP, MCMA > ------------------------- > @ FirstHand > ------------------------- > +44 7989 386778 > cdel at firsthand.net > ------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 16:15:16 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:15:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca> I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits meeting and all the discussion. My understanding (and I cc Jeanette who was there and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that discussion of evolution and strengthening was to go in the other letter....because it was harder to get agreement on that. WE are getting countries to sign on to extension of the mandate, which is quite difficult. We cannot start throwing in qualitative material that requires negotiation. Is this not why we have three letter going? Thanks Stephanie On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits > meeting. > > The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a > permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or > long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the > language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment > (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency > and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be > strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a > suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being > drafted. > > I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) > to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this > conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are only > part of the IGC should have the correct background information as well. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > My cent: > > Split the difference. > > Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN > participation in IGF; > > coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in > the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and > transparency reasons. > > Everyone's a winner. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > > on behalf of > George Sadowsky > > Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM > To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent > > I agree with Prakesh also. > > George > > > On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that > unanimity. > >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a > permanent body. > >> > >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we > should push for > >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really > going to help > >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be > renewable has > >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy > is not perfect). > >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of > the IGF's term) > >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more > "multistakeholder". > > > > Agree with Pranash > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 3 17:22:56 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:22:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement In-Reply-To: <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> Message-ID: <540786B0.9020707@wzb.eu> Good point! Jeanette Am 03.09.14 18:36, schrieb Christian de Larrinaga: > Replace > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all > stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants at > the 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of the its mandate which > is open-ended, as soon as possible. This letter will remain open for > signature until November 1, 2014. > > > to > > In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all > stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants of > the 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is extended as soon as possible > to be open-ended. > > This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014. > > > > > Christian > NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant. > > Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF >> mandate. We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic >> that many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including >> countries. Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc >> Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their input prior to the opening >> of the document for signature tomorrow morning. We are looking for a >> suitable platform to put the document up for signature, suggestions >> welcome. >> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with >> everyone! >> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- > Christian de Larrinaga > FBCS, CITP, MCMA > ------------------------- > @ FirstHand > ------------------------- > +44 7989 386778 > cdel at firsthand.net > ------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 17:04:50 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:04:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <54078272.7020403@mail.utoronto.ca> That certainly is my view, Nigel. We can fix it once we get it... cheers Stephanie On 2014-09-03, 16:31, Nigel Hickson wrote: > Good evening > > I think (but am often wrong) we are at one of those pivotal moments; > the strength of the IGF is the diverse bodies it throws together. A > call for an open-ended mandate for IGF is not guaranteed to find > traction at the UNGA but we would kick ourselves had we not tried. > > Best > > Nigel > > > From: Stephanie Perrin > > Reply-To: Stephanie Perrin > > Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:15 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, Anja Kovacs > >, Lee W > McKnight > > Cc: Milton L Mueller >, > George Sadowsky >, Pranesh Prakash > >, Jeanette > Hofmann >, Best Bits > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent > > I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits > meeting and all the discussion. My understanding (and I cc Jeanette > who was there and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that > discussion of evolution and strengthening was to go in the other > letter....because it was harder to get agreement on that. WE are > getting countries to sign on to extension of the mandate, which is > quite difficult. We cannot start throwing in qualitative material > that requires negotiation. > Is this not why we have three letter going? > Thanks > Stephanie > On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best >> Bits meeting. >> >> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a >> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent >> or long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is >> the language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the >> moment (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). >> Transparency and accountability for me are an integral part of what >> needs to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I >> have made a suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB >> statement is being drafted. >> >> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB >> statement) to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since >> this conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are >> only part of the IGC should have the correct background information >> as well. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight > > wrote: >> >> My cent: >> >> Split the difference. >> >> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN >> participation in IGF; >> >> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in >> the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and >> transparency reasons. >> >> Everyone's a winner. >> >> Lee >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > > on behalf of >> George Sadowsky > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM >> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller >> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF >> permanent >> >> I agree with Prakesh also. >> >> George >> >> >> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller > > wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that >> unanimity. >> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a >> permanent body. >> >> >> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we >> should push for >> >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really >> going to help >> >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be >> renewable has >> >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy >> is not perfect). >> >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of >> the IGF's term) >> >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more >> "multistakeholder". >> > >> > Agree with Pranash >> > --MM >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 18:48:19 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 04:18:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org> Message-ID: <54079AB3.4020207@itforchange.net> I have really not been able to fully follow this thread, but I would soon. But just out of curiosity: what really is the context and urgency to suddenly seek making the IGF permanent. (Before I go further, I will clearly state that I would indeed like to have the IGF made permanent. ) The IGF extension review will only take place next year as a part of WSIS plus 10 review, which is really quite some time off, plus there are other very important issues for WSIS plus 10, and we have not quite got into that discussion. So, I am not sure what has happened suddenly to which we are responding. I will be obliged if those pushing this initiative can help me understand this. I may have missed something here. Apart from wondering about what really precipitated this issue, and the urgency if it, I dont think the IGF is at all under any kind of threat of being discontinued. So, why is this threat being invented, especially when even the review is not around? I have never found any substantial opposition to continuation of the IGF, for it to constitute any real threat. (I remember one weak and vague statement of China once that IGF has served its purpose and can be closed down, but not much else really.) So, why in the middle of the intense activities of an ongoing IGF, where in fact there are some other important issues to discuss, have we gone into this fit of asserting the need to continue the IGF is something I am unable to understand. BTW, I am ready to take one to ten odds bet with anyone that the IGF will be renewed, Any takers? parminder On Monday 01 September 2014 09:12 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Jeanette, Stephanie > > Great initiative. Would be wonderful if we could turn this around, > get signatures and announce during the open mic/closing session. > > Can we try and get comments by end of Wednesday, sign-ons by end of > day Thurs? > > Letter may be a little long and overly full of UN text references - > but that may be a matter of tweaking. > > Best. > > Matthew > > On 9/1/2014 5:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent >> basis. >> >> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the >> IGF and from the NetMundial Statement. >> >> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >> >> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >> >> We have set up a pad for editing: >> >> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >> >> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >> >> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >> >> Stephanie and Jeanette >> >> >> >> Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence >> of the IGF >> >> >> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the >> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance >> Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) >> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating >> to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in >> the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, >> security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and >> developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing >> arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was >> intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding >> process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical >> operations of the Internet. >> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the >> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation >> with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to >> make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its >> sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the >> mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a >> view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet >> governance”. >> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the >> UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. >> It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector >> and international organizations discuss important questions of >> economic and social development. They share their insights and >> achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet’s great >> potential. >> >> >> The Secretary-General recommended that >> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for >> a further five years; >> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member >> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of >> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; >> >> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the >> preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for >> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 >> New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) >> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated >> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, >> that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by >> the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial >> Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as >> a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with >> a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to >> address them.” >> >> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the >> continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN >> Secretary General to establish the IGF as a permanent >> multistakeholder forum. We also request that the UN Secretary >> General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its >> structure and processes. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 3 18:58:06 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:58:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <54079AB3.4020207@itforchange.net> References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org> <54079AB3.4020207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54079CFE.70809@mail.utoronto.ca> I defer to others on this list who are regulars at IGF to answer your questions in detail, but I think you would have takers on that bet. I think the idea is to push for long term (not permanent, noone can ask for permanent these days) so that funding can be secured, and better long range planning assured. We should be out of ad hoc land by now, and it certainly does not look like we are, to newbies such as myself ( I should mention that the last time I came to IGF in person was in 2006). Why now? sadly the time to get collective action is often when folks are gathered together. Believe me, I have been missing sessions for two days to draft this thing and collaborate so I heartily agree that there are other wonderful things to be doing here. :-) Latest changes are now back up on the mozilla pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K Stephanie On 2014-09-03, 18:48, parminder wrote: > > I have really not been able to fully follow this thread, but I would > soon. > > But just out of curiosity: what really is the context and urgency to > suddenly seek making the IGF permanent. (Before I go further, I will > clearly state that I would indeed like to have the IGF made permanent. ) > > The IGF extension review will only take place next year as a part of > WSIS plus 10 review, which is really quite some time off, plus there > are other very important issues for WSIS plus 10, and we have not > quite got into that discussion. So, I am not sure what has happened > suddenly to which we are responding. I will be obliged if those > pushing this initiative can help me understand this. I may have missed > something here. > > Apart from wondering about what really precipitated this issue, and > the urgency if it, I dont think the IGF is at all under any kind of > threat of being discontinued. So, why is this threat being invented, > especially when even the review is not around? > > I have never found any substantial opposition to continuation of the > IGF, for it to constitute any real threat. (I remember one weak and > vague statement of China once that IGF has served its purpose and can > be closed down, but not much else really.) So, why in the middle of > the intense activities of an ongoing IGF, where in fact there are some > other important issues to discuss, have we gone into this fit of > asserting the need to continue the IGF is something I am unable to > understand. > > BTW, I am ready to take one to ten odds bet with anyone that the IGF > will be renewed, Any takers? > > parminder > > On Monday 01 September 2014 09:12 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: >> Jeanette, Stephanie >> >> Great initiative. Would be wonderful if we could turn this around, >> get signatures and announce during the open mic/closing session. >> >> Can we try and get comments by end of Wednesday, sign-ons by end of >> day Thurs? >> >> Letter may be a little long and overly full of UN text references - >> but that may be a matter of tweaking. >> >> Best. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 9/1/2014 5:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN >>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent >>> basis. >>> >>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the >>> IGF and from the NetMundial Statement. >>> >>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and >>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF. >>> >>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome. >>> >>> We have set up a pad for editing: >>> >>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K >>> >>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below. >>> >>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF. >>> >>> Stephanie and Jeanette >>> >>> >>> >>> Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence >>> of the IGF >>> >>> >>> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the >>> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue---called the Internet Governance >>> Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda) >>> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues >>> relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those >>> enumerated in >>> the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, >>> security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and >>> developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing >>> arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was >>> intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding >>> process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical >>> operations of the Internet. >>> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the >>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal >>> consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its >>> creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this >>> regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to >>> extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the >>> IGF "with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global >>> Internet governance". >>> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, >>> the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and >>> valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the >>> private sector and international organizations discuss important >>> questions of economic and social development. They share their >>> insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the >>> Internet's great potential. >>> >>> >>> The Secretary-General recommended that >>> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended >>> for a further five years; >>> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member >>> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of >>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015; >>> >>> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the >>> preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for >>> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of >>> 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**) >>> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated >>> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, >>> that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made >>> by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial >>> Statement also stated that "a strengthened IGF could better serve as >>> a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues >>> with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways >>> to address them." >>> >>> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the >>> continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN >>> Secretary General to establish the IGF as a permanent >>> multistakeholder forum. We also request that the UN Secretary >>> General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its >>> structure and processes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> mshears at cdt.org >> + 44 771 247 2987 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 3 20:03:14 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:03:14 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) In-Reply-To: <20140903130011.21096cdb@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20140903130011.21096cdb@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8DDEF99466934AFF995C6544E8F1FDBA@Toshiba> Some additions to the information Norbert has passed on about JNC's stance on this issue - What is necessary given our very tight timeframe is that a decision to participate or not (or with conditions) is made by early Friday this week, so that a call for candidates can be completed. At this point of time some civil society coalitions have indicated a preference to be involved, while at the same time communicating JNC's decision/concerns. Other groups are still considering their position. The CSCG brief which was negotiated with WEF was to provide 4 civil society reps for a committee of 15 approx total. Other stakeholders on the committee will include academics, technical community, business, intergovernmental organisations etc. FYI. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:00 PM To: IGC ; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) For transparency on a key position taken by JNC in CSCG, and with the idea to possibly also inspire discussion on this question in IGC and BestBits which doesn't seem to started here yet... Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:54:39 +0200 From: Norbert Bollow Subject: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:13:54 +1000 "Ian Peter" wrote: > Tuesday September 2 ASAP after 8am - report to member groups and open > discussion focussed on whether we should participate and if so under > what conditions. After some very intense discussions, the current JNC view is that CSCG as such should not be doing selections for WEF's initiative (whatever it ends up being called.) The reasoning is as follows: * It is fine for WEF or any other business group or anyone really to create an initiative in any way they like, with themselves in the steering seat, as long as they don't explicitly or implicitly claim it to be a multistakeholder initiative. * Changing the name of WEF's “Netmundial Initiative” to something else, for example the idea of “Net World” that WEF mentioned, it a good and positive step but that's not likely to result in a very deep and profound change in how the initiative is perceived and framed now that it has made a big splash under the “Netmundial Initiative” name, unless it is also clearly rebranded as an initiative of a business community as opposed to a multistakeholder initiative. An initiative of a business community can of course still invite some civil society people to participate in a sense of advising them, that is perfectly fine. They can invite some whom they already know, and/or if they then still have gaps, I would in my personal capacity be happy to make suggestions about who else they might consider to invite. * However CSCG should not be involved in making selections of civil society representatives for a “steering committee” which really has only an advisory capacity while the real decision making authority remains in the hands of WEF and its business members. This is in contrast the (real) NetMundial process where it was the multistakeholder committees which had the decision-making authority to steer the process. We should not involve CSCG in a way would contribute to creating the false impression of WEF's initiative being the same kind of multistakeholder activity. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Sep 4 01:00:15 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 01:00:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <21511.61919.10896.716178@world.std.com> Whether I agree with your premise or not vis a vis permanence you raise good questions Pranesh Prakash. From: Pranesh Prakash >Jeremy Malcolm [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]: >> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent = >mandate of the IGF > >I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.=20 >Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. > >The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should=20 >push for accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really=20 >going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA=20 >contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far,=20 >though the analogy is not perfect). I would support making the=20 >evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative=20 >and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > >I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its=20 >mandate before we call for it to be made permanent. For instance: > > * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the=20 >stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and=20 >affordability of the Internet in the developing world? > * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from=20 >the use and misuse of the Internet? > * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant=20 >bodies? If so, which issues and which bodies? > * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their=20 >purview? If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this=20 >interfacing? > >I believe that stability of the IGF is very important. However, I think=20 >for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the=20 >IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish=20 >to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF=20 >permanent. I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and=20 >finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing=20 >stability to the IGF than making it permanent would. > >Apologies for sounding an off-note. > >Regards, >Pranesh -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 01:17:20 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:47:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Gentle Reminder-main session Role of IGF Evol. ECOSYSTEM & Strengthening the IGF FROM 9.30 AM-12.30 Main Room In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks again for everything you have done to make this main possible. Do please join us this morning in the main room. This is also your space to share your views about Strengthening the IGF. Looking forward to a vibrant and constructive session. Hashtag : #futureIG Warmest Subi Chaturvedi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 4 02:26:16 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:26:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <54080608.2020806@wzb.eu> Nigel, this captures my motivation very well, thank you! jeanette Am 03.09.14 22:31, schrieb Nigel Hickson: > Good evening > > I think (but am often wrong) we are at one of those pivotal moments; the > strength of the IGF is the diverse bodies it throws together. A call > for an open-ended mandate for IGF is not guaranteed to find traction at > the UNGA but we would kick ourselves had we not tried. > > Best > > Nigel > > > From: Stephanie Perrin > > Reply-To: Stephanie Perrin > > Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:15 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, Anja Kovacs > >, Lee W > McKnight > > Cc: Milton L Mueller >, George > Sadowsky >, > Pranesh Prakash >, > Jeanette Hofmann >, Best Bits > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent > > I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits > meeting and all the discussion. My understanding (and I cc Jeanette who > was there and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that > discussion of evolution and strengthening was to go in the other > letter....because it was harder to get agreement on that. WE are > getting countries to sign on to extension of the mandate, which is quite > difficult. We cannot start throwing in qualitative material that > requires negotiation. > Is this not why we have three letter going? > Thanks > Stephanie > On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits >> meeting. >> >> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a >> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or >> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the >> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment >> (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency >> and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be >> strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a >> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being >> drafted. >> >> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) >> to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this >> conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are only >> part of the IGC should have the correct background information as well. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight > > wrote: >> >> My cent: >> >> Split the difference. >> >> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN >> participation in IGF; >> >> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in >> the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and >> transparency reasons. >> >> Everyone's a winner. >> >> Lee >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > > on behalf of >> George Sadowsky > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM >> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller >> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent >> >> I agree with Prakesh also. >> >> George >> >> >> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller > > wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. >> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. >> >> >> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for >> >> accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really going to help >> >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has >> >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). >> >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) >> >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". >> > >> > Agree with Pranash >> > --MM >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 4 02:44:30 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <54080A4E.3070508@wzb.eu> Am 03.09.14 14:21, schrieb Pranesh Prakash: > Jeremy Malcolm [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]: >> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the >> permanent mandate of the IGF > > I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. > Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body. > > The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should > push for accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent isn't really > going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA > contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, > though the analogy is not perfect). I think the analogy is somewhat misleading because it does not take into account the internal logics and dynamics of UN evaluation processes. The intergovernmental WSIS +10, a real u-turn in terms of multistakeholder approaches but an important context for the evaluation of the IGF, offers a good example of those logics. What I mean to say is that the 5 years mandate of the IGF does not provide for the kind of evaluation of the IGF that most people find necessary. It would be good to see the IGF reviewed on its own terms. Do you really trust the UN to do this? Given the terms of the WSIS+10, how likely is it to convince the UN to make the IGF evaluation process "more participative > and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder"? I also agree with Stephanie that it would be good to think about review or evaluation mechanisms that are able to hold the IGF secretariat and the MAG to account. All the questions you raise below are good ones but I think what you seem to imply is wrong. A thorough and comprehensive analysis would find more evidence for the IGF's impact than you see. jeanette I would support making the > evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative > and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder". > > I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its > mandate before we call for it to be made permanent. For instance: > > * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the > stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world? > * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from > the use and misuse of the Internet? > * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant > bodies? If so, which issues and which bodies? > * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their > purview? If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this > interfacing? > > I believe that stability of the IGF is very important. However, I think > for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the > IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish > to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF > permanent. I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and > finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing > stability to the IGF than making it permanent would. > > Apologies for sounding an off-note. > > Regards, > Pranesh > > > Jeanette Hofmann [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]: >> Hi all, >> >> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that >> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing >> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years. >> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting. >> >> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other >> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able >> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical >> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a >> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days >> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an >> all inclusive statement.) >> >> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only >> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, >> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your >> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find >> support in civil society. >> >> jeanette >> >> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email >> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 4 03:41:53 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 04:41:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality Message-ID: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> [Sorry for possible duplications] Dear people, In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles which is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided by the president of Brazil. Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear, and I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances in which further regulation may be required (and this only after consulting with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 2 and refer to prioritization of emergency services and technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications, and these cannot violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9. I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion which spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been expressed in other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious. fraternal regards --c.a. ======================= Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application. § 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the faithful implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications (Anatel), and may only arise from: I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications; and II – emergency services prioritization. § 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred to in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must: I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of the Civil Code; II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality; III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and sufficiently descriptive manner to its the management practices and traffic mitigation adopted, including those related to network security; and IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices. § 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets, respected the provisions of this article. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 4 04:04:52 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:04:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality In-Reply-To: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> References: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Sorry, I meant para 1. Corrected below. Thx --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 04/09/2014, at 10:41, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > [Sorry for possible duplications] > > Dear people, > > In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles which is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided by the president of Brazil. > > Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear, and I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances in which further regulation may be required (and this only after consulting with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 1 and refer to prioritization of emergency services and technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications, and these cannot violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9. > > I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion which spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been expressed in other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ======================= > > Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application. > > § 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the faithful implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications (Anatel), and may only arise from: > > I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications; and > > II – emergency services prioritization. > > § 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred to in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must: > > I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of the Civil Code; > > II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality; > > III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and sufficiently descriptive manner to its the management practices and traffic mitigation adopted, including those related to network security; and > > IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices. > > § 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets, respected the provisions of this article. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 05:49:50 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:49:50 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Split the difference. > > Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF; The UN GA would do that for us, so why would do it and disarm at the front end? As for 10, you get 5. That’s the point of asking for a permanent mandate, so when there’s push back and control agendas and conditions being proposed and tactical linkages being made to residual intergovernmental enhanced cooperation plays in exchange for a five year extension we can negotiate to a higher middle ground of ten. Why anyone would think that keeping the UNGA in a position of being able to kick the IGF around every five years and the DESA in a position to micromanage based on institutional weakness is a path to some higher level of accountability is really beyond me. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 06:37:55 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:37:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Food for thought.... Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/09/03/why-internet-governance-should-be-left-to-the-engineers/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 07:32:56 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:32:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) In-Reply-To: <20140903130011.21096cdb@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20140903130011.21096cdb@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear All, In light of the position taken by the JNC below, please be advised that if the CSCG go forward with the decision to participate in this WEF process --which still is being considered but not adopted by the group yet-- the formal announcement of nominees, if and when that occurs, will have to include the acknowledgement that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process" (or something along those lines.) We were set to proceed roughly by COB today, UTC time, if everything goes as planned. So if you have any strong views about this, I'd invite you to post them now, maybe until tonight. Thank you. Mawaki On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > For transparency on a key position taken by JNC in CSCG, and with the > idea to possibly also inspire discussion on this question in IGC and > BestBits which doesn't seem to started here yet... > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:54:39 +0200 > From: Norbert Bollow > Subject: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's > initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) > > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:13:54 +1000 > "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > Tuesday September 2 ASAP after 8am - report to member groups and open > > discussion focussed on whether we should participate and if so under > > what conditions. > > After some very intense discussions, the current JNC view is that CSCG > as such should not be doing selections for WEF's initiative (whatever it > ends up being called.) The reasoning is as follows: > > * It is fine for WEF or any other business group or anyone really to > create an initiative in any way they like, with themselves in the > steering seat, as long as they don't explicitly or implicitly claim > it to be a multistakeholder initiative. > > * Changing the name of WEF's "Netmundial Initiative" to something else, > for example the idea of "Net World" that WEF mentioned, it a good and > positive step but that's not likely to result in a very deep and > profound change in how the initiative is perceived and framed now that > it has made a big splash under the "Netmundial Initiative" name, > unless it is also clearly rebranded as an initiative of a business > community as opposed to a multistakeholder initiative. An initiative > of a business community can of course still invite some civil society > people to participate in a sense of advising them, that is perfectly > fine. They can invite some whom they already know, and/or if they then > still have gaps, I would in my personal capacity be happy to make > suggestions about who else they might consider to invite. > > * However CSCG should not be involved in making selections of civil > society representatives for a "steering committee" which really has > only an advisory capacity while the real decision making authority > remains in the hands of WEF and its business members. This is in > contrast the (real) NetMundial process where it was the > multistakeholder committees which had the decision-making authority > to steer the process. We should not involve CSCG in a way would > contribute to creating the false impression of WEF's initiative being > the same kind of multistakeholder activity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list > cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net > > For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 4 08:01:01 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:01:01 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) In-Reply-To: References: <20140903130011.21096cdb@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Cross posted here as well – FYI I'm cross posting this here because it was suggested I do this, after I originally posted this to the CSCG list. To give context - some of our members are concerned that there hasnt been enough discussion and want to delay consideration until we have clarity about WEF's objectives and plans, intentions etc, and formally announce their intentions including decoupling from NetMundial. I suggested those in Istanbul seek another meeting if possible to clarify matters; but after some thought I posted this. I think this explains where we are at from my perspective. Thinking more about this - while I would still urge you to meet with WEF and seek more clarity, I think our dilemma is this. WEF dont want to be clear about the process because they want it to be seen that the incoming committee defines the process. So we are in a Catch-22 here – it they define it, they are not being bottom-up, if they don’t, we don’t think we have enough clarity to participate. WEF want to move quickly so they have something to show for their efforts. they expect to have all other committee members in place next week, the only exception being civil society. They have agreed to us having more time, and also to us choosing all CS members. Now if we ask for more time, they will see the strength of the project and their commitments at risk and our involvement as unreliable. This is particularly so because we really dont know how much time it would take us to decide whether we want to commit or not. I doubt there will be any more clarity in one week, or three weeks, or 3 months. So I actually think we might have a lot to lose by delaying, and nothing to gain. The nature of this initiative as something new and outside our normal range of experience means that we probably have to take a risk, or alternatively determine right now to disengage. I think we should take that risk, and stick to our timetable or something workable very close to it. In doing so, to minimise our risk, we can continue to engage and select candidates, but communicate with this process some misgivings and concerns. We can indicate an intention to withdraw unless certain developments are committed to. So by all means talk to them about more time, but I am not sure whether it will help. I know that things are difficult at IGF with so many meetings and poor wifi, and if it helps we could delay a couple of days and shorten the nomination period. But to be honest I dont think we are going to have any more clarity then, or within a month. So we may have to engage and be part of the development, rather than waiting to react to something which really shouldn’t be developed much further without our involvement anyway. Typical difficulties at the beginning. I understand the caution. Let’s use the caution to define our concerns and communicate them as we engage. That’s my thoughts, but the decision is yours. Ian From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:32 PM To: Internet Governance Cc: Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) Dear All, In light of the position taken by the JNC below, please be advised that if the CSCG go forward with the decision to participate in this WEF process --which still is being considered but not adopted by the group yet-- the formal announcement of nominees, if and when that occurs, will have to include the acknowledgement that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process" (or something along those lines.) We were set to proceed roughly by COB today, UTC time, if everything goes as planned. So if you have any strong views about this, I'd invite you to post them now, maybe until tonight. Thank you. Mawaki On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: For transparency on a key position taken by JNC in CSCG, and with the idea to possibly also inspire discussion on this question in IGC and BestBits which doesn't seem to started here yet... Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:54:39 +0200 From: Norbert Bollow Subject: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF) On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:13:54 +1000 "Ian Peter" wrote: > Tuesday September 2 ASAP after 8am - report to member groups and open > discussion focussed on whether we should participate and if so under > what conditions. After some very intense discussions, the current JNC view is that CSCG as such should not be doing selections for WEF's initiative (whatever it ends up being called.) The reasoning is as follows: * It is fine for WEF or any other business group or anyone really to create an initiative in any way they like, with themselves in the steering seat, as long as they don't explicitly or implicitly claim it to be a multistakeholder initiative. * Changing the name of WEF's “Netmundial Initiative” to something else, for example the idea of “Net World” that WEF mentioned, it a good and positive step but that's not likely to result in a very deep and profound change in how the initiative is perceived and framed now that it has made a big splash under the “Netmundial Initiative” name, unless it is also clearly rebranded as an initiative of a business community as opposed to a multistakeholder initiative. An initiative of a business community can of course still invite some civil society people to participate in a sense of advising them, that is perfectly fine. They can invite some whom they already know, and/or if they then still have gaps, I would in my personal capacity be happy to make suggestions about who else they might consider to invite. * However CSCG should not be involved in making selections of civil society representatives for a “steering committee” which really has only an advisory capacity while the real decision making authority remains in the hands of WEF and its business members. This is in contrast the (real) NetMundial process where it was the multistakeholder committees which had the decision-making authority to steer the process. We should not involve CSCG in a way would contribute to creating the false impression of WEF's initiative being the same kind of multistakeholder activity. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 4 09:10:02 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:10:02 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent In-Reply-To: References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <2247c55a35f04d229747b32b4242a931@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Please, I was suggesting UNGA kick IGF around every 10 years, not every 5 ; ) As 5 is old news and no 'concession' from anyone, I do not see that as a plausible fallback. So recognizing 10 is what "UN GA would do that for us" is a bad strategy because?? Seems like an opportunity to simultaneously make additional demands on transparency and accountability. Of course, as ICANN has just taught us yet again, not all transparency and accountability processes were created equal, so details will matter. But in any case 10 with (some more) accountability and transparency is better than infinite without. Lee ________________________________ From: William Drake Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:49 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: Governance; Milton L Mueller; George Sadowsky; Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Split the difference. Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF; The UN GA would do that for us, so why would do it and disarm at the front end? As for 10, you get 5. That's the point of asking for a permanent mandate, so when there's push back and control agendas and conditions being proposed and tactical linkages being made to residual intergovernmental enhanced cooperation plays in exchange for a five year extension we can negotiate to a higher middle ground of ten. Why anyone would think that keeping the UNGA in a position of being able to kick the IGF around every five years and the DESA in a position to micromanage based on institutional weakness is a path to some higher level of accountability is really beyond me. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Sep 4 09:25:52 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:25:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on or before November 1. We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. Examples of how you will be listed appear below: 1. Jane Smith Individual 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets 3. State of [x] Country Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF renewal7.1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 135115 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 4 09:53:24 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:53:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Stephanie, Jeanette: Thank you. Really a very good feeling to have something positive before us. Look forward to being able to sign. Adam On Sep 4, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at > > www.IGFcontinuity.org > very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, > jeanette at wzb.eu > > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ekenyanito at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:04:24 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:04:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Invitation- Youth Coalition on Internet Governance - IGF Istanbul Friday 9.00am Message-ID: ​You are invited to participate in Youth Coalition on Internet Governance in Workshop Room 05 (Rumeli -1 Floor / Room 3) on Friday September 5, 2014 9:00am – 10:30am. This meeting is aimed to rejuvenate the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, bringing new leadership and setup a strategical plan for the next 3 years. The meeting will involve new members working on setting new goals for the coalition and ensuring the transition. It will follow a roundtable format and will be facilitated by the interim coordinator. It will involve old and new members of the Dynamic Coalition. Remote participation is at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation-2014 We welcome your participation to find ways to ensure that the youth voice is heard in internet governance. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Sep 4 10:08:43 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:08:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will send an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, UTC+2. Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please indicate how you would prefer this support to be expressed. The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line. Stephanie Perrin > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at > www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF renewal7.1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 135115 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:19:20 2014 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:19:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I am agree with this recommandation! 2014-09-04 16:25 GMT+03:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur TIC | ICT Engineer Contact personnel: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Sep 4 10:37:09 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:37:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] [IWSAC 2014] Submission deadline extended to September 20, 2014 Message-ID: <02ab01cfc84d$b5695590$203c00b0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************** SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURITY ASSURANCE IN THE CLOUD (IWSAC2014) Held in conjunction with the 10th International Conference on Signal Image Technology & Internet Based Systems (SITIS 2014) One day between November 23-27, 2014, Marrakech, Morocco Web site: http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014 IWSAC 2014 BACKGROUND AND GOALS The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the Cloud computing paradigm provides a new environment fostering the integration of services located within company boundaries with those in the Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business processes and applications via runtime composition of services made available in the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and threats, and requires re-thinking of current assurance, development, testing, and verification methodologies. In particular, security assurance in the cloud is becoming a pressing need to increase the confidence of the cloud actors that the cloud and its services are behaving as expected, and requires novel approaches addressing SOA and cloud peculiarities. IWSAC 2014 is the continuation of the International Workshop on Securing Services on the Cloud, held in September 2011, Milan, Italy. It aims to address the security assurance issues related to the deployment of services in the Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on traditional security solutions for software and network systems. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security and assurance of services implemented in the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Authentication and access control in the cloud * Challenges in moving critical systems to the cloud * Cloud accountability * Cloud audit * Cloud compliance * Cloud certification * Cloud transparency, introspection, and outrospection * Cybersecurity in the cloud * Data security and privacy in the Cloud * Information assurance and trust management * Intrusion detection in the Cloud * Security assurance in the cloud * Security and assurance protocols in the Cloud * Service level agreements * Service procurement in the cloud * Service verification in critical cloud services * Test-based and monitoring-based verification of cloud services IMPORTANT DATES Extended Paper submission due: September 22, 2014 (11:59 PM American Samoa time) Notification to authors: October 10, 2014 Camera-ready due: October 15, 2014 Registration due: October 19, 2014 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop with proceedings. Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and must follow the IEEE double columns publication format available at - [Microsoft Word DOC] ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc - [LaTex Formatting Macros] ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip A maximum of 2 extra pages can be purchased for the final version of the accepted papers. Submissions are to be made to the submission web site https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2014 by selecting track "Workshop on Security Assurance in the Cloud". Only pdf files will be accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without consideration of their merits. Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register with the main conference and present the paper. Accepted papers at the workshop will be published in the conference proceedings and in the IEEE digital library. Extended version of selected accepted papers will be considered for publication in a journal special issue (TBC). IWSAC 2014 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS General Chair (SITIS General Chair) * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Chairs * Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Rasool Asal, British Telecommunications, UK/UAE Publicity Chair * Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Web Chair * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Committee * Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany * Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Michele Bezzi, SAP, France * Mauro Conti, University of Padua, Italy * Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA * Atsuhiro Goto, Institute of Information Security, Japan * Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany * Patrick Hung, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada * Meiko Jensen, Southern Denmark University, Denmark * Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany * Nicolas Larrieu, ENAC, France * Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain * Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK * George Spanoudakis, City University of London, UK This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be found at http://sesar.di.unimi.it/iwsac2014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Sep 4 10:54:30 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:54:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] [SIMPDA2014] Fourth International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis Message-ID: <036001cfc850$21c8a450$6559ecf0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this CFP] ############################################################################ Fourth International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis ################################ SIMPDA 2014 ############################### - http://simpda2014.di.unimi.it/ - IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 - - Milano, Italy, November 19th-21th - # About SIMPDA # With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the symposium will be held in Milan, the city of Expo 2015. # Call for Papers # The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from: http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume which will be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review. -- Topics -- Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: - Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods - Data-aware and data-centric approaches - Variability and configuration of process models - Process Mining with Big Data - Process simulation and static analyses - Process data query languages - Process data mining - Privacy-aware process data mining - Process metadata and semantic reasoning - Process patterns and standards - Foundations of business process models - Resource management in business process execution - Process tracing and monitoring - Process change management and evolution - Business process lifecycle - Case studies and experience reports - Social process discovery - Crowdsourced process definition and discovery -- Workshop Format -- In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop: The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students. Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be prepared with particular care, making ready comments and suggestions. The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session. The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges during which every participant will be asked to assemble their thoughts/project/ideas/goals/etc that they got out of the workshop. # Call for PhD Research Plans # The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social implications. Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized following the following structure: Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance. Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the relevant the research questions. Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant references (papers or books). Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the specific contribution. Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results, limitations of the approach. Research stage: describes what the student has done so far. - SIMPDA PhD award - A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research plan submitted. # Student Scholarships # An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it # Keynote Speakers # Jorge Cardoso University of Coimbra, Portugal - Compliance of Business Processes with Reference Models - Reference models provide best practices to design effective and efficient business processes. However, a main challenge is to evaluate how these best practices are implemented. One limitation of existing approaches is the assumption that compliance can be determined using the notion of process equivalence. Nonetheless, the use of equivalence algorithms is not suitable since two models can have different structures but one process can still be compliant with the other. This talk presents an approach to measure the compliance of process models with reference models, which was used by a German passenger airline using IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) reference models. The talk also covers various initiatives to evaluate the quality and understandability of process models. # Industrial Talks # Claudia Sebastiani Creativi Quadrati, Partner openERP - Business Process Measurement in small enterprises after the installation of an ERP software - We report the observation of the first six months of operation after the installation of an ERP software in a group of small Italian enterprises (some dealers of various products and one manufacturer). Before the ERP, no explicit process descriptions existed within the companies: the operations were manually performed, using office automation software or legacy programs that were not process oriented. The new ERP is equipped with a workflow engine, a number of standard processes that should be followed by the users, and a tracking system that logs the main steps of the processes. We use process mining tools to analyze the events logged by the ERP during the sales, the purchases and the manufacture cycles. Our aim is to 1) compare the ideal processes suggested by the ERP with the real paths followed by the users 2) describe the eventual adaptation of these paths, as the users became acquainted with the ERP 3) highlight critical segments in terms of time spent, iterations, etc. 4) compare the processes of different companies that are in similar business areas. The final goal is to get a better understanding of the processes and a rationalization of the operations. It must be stressed that both the ERP and the main tools used are open source, so that the process measurement is affordable even for very small (micro) enterprises. Gregorio Piccoli Zucchetti - Hierarchical clustering for managers - Data Mining and Process Mining over big amount of data are today more and more requested by companies. However managers do not have the necessary competences for handling the results of analysis ran using these techniques. For this reason data visualization is a key element to exploit the full potential of data analysis. Zucchetti spa has developed an in-house approach for constructing user-friendly data visualizers. Gabriele Ruffatti Engineering Ingegneria Informatica - A living story: measuring quality of developments in a large industrial software factory with Open Source Software - Open Source has no more intrinsic value per se. Nowadays it is facing new challenges, such as stimulating creativity and bringing innovation into market. One of its major challenges consists in delivering valuable outcomes, which requires a PMAI approach: Plan metrics and dimensions of analysis, get Measures and global performance value from data, Assess results and Improve processes by solving issues and removing bottlenecks. Engineering Group uses Open Source Software to makes this happen. Spago4Q, the analytic of the business intelligence suite SpagoBI, allows the company to measure the quality of products, processes and services and to monitor the continuous improvement of quality practices. The measurement and enhancement of productivity complies with quality certifications such as ISO and CMMi standards. QESTnd - an n-dimensional measurement model - allows to collect performance values on three dimensions of analysis (Economical, Social and Technical) in order to identify process areas that need improvements. Drill-down capabilities provide both a unified view of the global performance of the Labs and detailed views of the single process dimensions. # Organizers # CHAIRS - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Barbara Russo, Free University of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy ADVISORY BOARD - Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia - Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada - Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Philippe Cudre-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland # Important Dates # - Submission of Full Papers: September 15th 2014 - Submission of PhD Research Plans: September 15th 2014 - Notification of Acceptance: October 15th 2014 - Submission of Camera Ready Papers: November 10th 2014 # Program Committee # - Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany - Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux, France - Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany - Helen Balinsky, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, UK - Valentina Emilia Balas, University of Arad, Romania - Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France - George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK - Richard Chbeir, University of Bourgogne, France - Gregorio Martinez Perez, University of Murcia, Spain - Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada - Jan Mendling, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria - Farookh Hussain, University of Technology Sydney, Australia - Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE - Wil Van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands - Ronald Maier, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Marco Montali, Free Unviersity of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy - Elizabeth Chang, University New South Wales, Australia - Peter Spyns, Flemish Government, Belgium - Angelo Corallo, University of Salento, Italy - Antonio Mana Gomez, University of Málaga, Spain - Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestinian Territory - Isabella Seeber, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Chi Hung, Tsinghua University, China - Alessandra Toninelli, Engineering Group, Italy - Haris Mouratidis, University of Brighton, UK - Abder Koukam, University of Technology, UTBM France - Fabrizio Maria Maggi, University of Tartu, Estonia - Massimiliano De Leoni, Eindhoven TU, Netherlands - Edgar Weippl, TU Vienna, Austria - Pnina Soffer, University of Haifa, Israel - Jianmin Wang, Tsinghua University Beijing, China - Minseok Song, UNIST, South Korea - Roland Rieke, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany - Josep Carmona, UPC - Barcelona, Spain - Mark Strembeck, WU Vienna, Austria - Matthias Weidlich, Imperial College, UK - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux - Maria Leitner, University of Vienna, Austria - Benoit Depaire, University of Hasselt, Belgium - Barbara Weber, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Babiga Birregah, University of Technology of Troyes, France # Historical Information on Previous Editions # SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis. The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series. Several events and activities arose off these symposia, among the most notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars: - Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29, 2010. - Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29, 2010. The venue was for both editions Campione d'Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:58:59 2014 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:58:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Analía Aspis (University of Buenos Aires) On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 11:09:34 2014 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:09:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality In-Reply-To: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> References: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Carlos, Thanks for your message. I am willing to re-watch the panel. Do you have by chance the web link? Kind regards for Argentina, Analía Aspis On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > [Sorry for possible duplications] > > Dear people, > > In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we > have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for the > Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles which > is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after > publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations > basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided by > the president of Brazil. > > Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear, and > I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances in > which further regulation may be required (and this only after consulting > with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 2 and refer to > prioritization of emergency services and technical requirements essential > for the adequate provision of services and applications, and these cannot > violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9. > > I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers > who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion which > spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been expressed in > other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ======================= > > Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is > obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, > origin and destination, service, terminal or application. > > § 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in > accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic > provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the faithful > implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering Committee > (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications (Anatel), and may > only arise from: > > I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of > services and applications; and > > II – emergency services prioritization. > > § 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred to > in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must: > > I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of > the Civil Code; > > II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality; > > III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and sufficiently > descriptive manner to its the management practices and traffic mitigation > adopted, including those related to network security; and > > IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and > refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices. > > § 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as > well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to > block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets, respected > the provisions of this article. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 4 16:11:44 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 01:41:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> My main problem with the letter - as I discussed today personally with Jeanette and Stephanie - is the promotion in it of the IGF support association - an unknown and as non transparent imitative as any . Its civil society representation especially I do not understand and appriciate... Where did the group come from, who formed it, why... And why in the cover of something like the preservation of the IGF which issue would rightly get great support, including perhaps from governments, this unknown non transparent organisation is being promoted. Who are they? parminder On Thursday 04 September 2014 07:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will > send an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, > UTC+2. Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please > indicate how you would prefer this support to be expressed. > The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line. > Stephanie Perrin >> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: >> >> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various >> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate >> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the >> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for >> projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not >> just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended >> re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We >> request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on >> or before November 1. >> >> We will be creating a neutral website for this project at >> www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, >> countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will >> collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are >> able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF >> 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair >> will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. >> Examples of how you will be listed appear below: >> 1. Jane Smith Individual >> 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets >> 3. State of [x] Country >> >> Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu >> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 4 16:30:49 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:30:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <8970E3BE-8C91-496C-A19B-3CB187D26BCF@cafonso.ca> Analia, transcripts and videocasts should be made available by IGF organizers, but mistaken interpretations also circulated widely on social nets. Frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 04/09/2014, at 18:09, Analia Aspis wrote: > > Dear Carlos, > > Thanks for your message. I am willing to re-watch the panel. Do you have by chance the web link? > > Kind regards for Argentina, > Analía Aspis > > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> [Sorry for possible duplications] >> >> Dear people, >> >> In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles which is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided by the president of Brazil. >> >> Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear, and I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances in which further regulation may be required (and this only after consulting with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 2 and refer to prioritization of emergency services and technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications, and these cannot violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9. >> >> I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion which spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been expressed in other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> ======================= >> >> Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application. >> >> § 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the faithful implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications (Anatel), and may only arise from: >> >> I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications; and >> >> II – emergency services prioritization. >> >> § 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred to in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must: >> >> I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of the Civil Code; >> >> II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality; >> >> III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and sufficiently descriptive manner to its the management practices and traffic mitigation adopted, including those related to network security; and >> >> IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices. >> >> § 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets, respected the provisions of this article. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 16:44:58 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:44:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I came across the message below, this morning and I realize that there's still no equivalent or forward to IGC. Since IGC was part of the nomination process (at least as far as the CSCG is concerned) and maybe your delegate might have played a tiny little part in facilitation her nomination, I thought the Caucus might deserve to be informed of the outcome, too. And just in case you have suggestions for the speech, now you know the address. Thanks, Mawaki ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Burcu Kilic Date: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Dear Bestbits friends, Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind words -- very much appreciated. I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the issues we care. Please send me your suggestions. Best, Burcu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 17:05:04 2014 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:05:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Dear Stephanie, Sorry, but I misunderstood the text. I would prefer so far not to support the initative. Would be wonderful if you could confirm my decline, Regards, Analía On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Sep 4 18:56:54 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:56:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5408EE36.90206@mail.utoronto.ca> No problem, I will remove your name. Thanks Stephanie On 2014-09-04, 17:05, Analia Aspis wrote: > Dear Stephanie, > > Sorry, but I misunderstood the text. I would prefer so far not to > support the initative. > > Would be wonderful if you could confirm my decline, > > Regards, > Analía > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at > www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 19:03:03 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 00:03:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <5408EE36.90206@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408EE36.90206@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Stephenaie Please accept my support. Remmy Nweke - ITRealms, Nigeria On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > No problem, I will remove your name. > Thanks > Stephanie > On 2014-09-04, 17:05, Analia Aspis wrote: > > Dear Stephanie, > > Sorry, but I misunderstood the text. I would prefer so far not to > support the initative. > > Would be wonderful if you could confirm my decline, > > Regards, > Analía > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: >> >> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various >> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate >> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the >> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for >> projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not >> just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended >> re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We >> request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on >> or before November 1. >> >> We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, >> countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will >> collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are >> able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF >> 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair >> will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. >> Examples of how you will be listed appear below: >> 1. Jane Smith Individual >> 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets >> 3. State of [x] Country >> >> Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu >> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014< http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Thu Sep 4 22:42:25 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:42:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9-kcJskXtw&list=UUk0zf4oI0IsJLh1owvUQSfQ On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Analia Aspis wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > Thanks for your message. I am willing to re-watch the panel. Do you have > by chance the web link? > > Kind regards for Argentina, > Analía Aspis > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Sep 5 03:45:19 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 03:45:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54096A0F.1000501@mail.utoronto.ca> These are great questions Parminder, which I cannot answer. We were told it was a new and viable effort to gather funding support. I am busy trying to gather and input as many signatures as possible so that we have a decent number to report by this afternoon....but I think others could answer those questions. Cheers Stephanie On 2014-09-04, 16:11, parminder wrote: > > > My main problem with the letter - as I discussed today personally with > Jeanette and Stephanie - is the promotion in it of the IGF support > association - an unknown and as non transparent imitative as any . Its > civil society representation especially I do not understand and > appriciate... Where did the group come from, who formed it, why... And > why in the cover of something like the preservation of the IGF which > issue would rightly get great support, including perhaps from > governments, this unknown non transparent organisation is being > promoted. Who are they? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 04 September 2014 07:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will >> send an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, >> UTC+2. Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please >> indicate how you would prefer this support to be expressed. >> The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject >> line. >> Stephanie Perrin >>> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: >>> >>> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various >>> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate >>> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the >>> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for >>> projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not >>> just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended >>> re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We >>> request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on >>> or before November 1. >>> >>> We will be creating a neutral website for this project at >>> www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, >>> countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will >>> collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are >>> able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF >>> 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair >>> will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. >>> Examples of how you will be listed appear below: >>> 1. Jane Smith Individual >>> 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets >>> 3. State of [x] Country >>> >>> Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu >>> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Fri Sep 5 04:43:19 2014 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:43:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Internet rights at HRC27 Message-ID: <540977A7.7010604@apc.org> Dear friends, Sharing the APC and AccessNow brieg on internet rights at the 2th session of the UN Human Rights Council, which starts next week: http://bit.ly/1qsR1pd Apologies for any cross posting Regards Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ngreen260 at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 04:56:47 2014 From: ngreen260 at gmail.com (Natalie Green) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:56:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF statements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for cross posting. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Natalie Green Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM Subject: IGF statements To: Best Bits Hello All, Just passing along some relevant links. First here's a statement from a variety of stakeholders in support of IGF renewal: http://igfcontinuation.org/ Now this one is a consensus statement that came out of the Best Bits pre-IGF meeting. Feel free to sign up your organization or yourself as a supporter: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ Thanks so much for attending! The report of the BB meeting will go out next week. Best, Natalie -- -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 5 05:50:49 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:20:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony In-Reply-To: References: <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org> Message-ID: <54098779.7040809@itforchange.net> Best wishes Burcu This is late in coming, but connecting IG to your area of work directly, you may want to say something about how allocation of .health tld to a group that talks about 'safe drugs' which as you know is also US pharma's code word for US IP law complaint drugs impacts access to health and medicines related rights of people... The owners of the .health are going to actually police this tld and it wont be just an open tld that anyone can use.... This is a big set back to public interest in this area, which highlights why ICANN requires public interest oversight, which is really effective and which related to global public interest.. parminder On Friday 05 September 2014 03:15 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > rock it, Burcu! > > I would suggest that IGF 2015 gets revitalized, both in terms of > format and dynamics, also building into previous innovative and > creative ways of online public consultations to include people outside > IG community... > > As it happens in other foras, it would be great if it can become an > space also for makers, hackers, artists doing hands on activities > to... save the net :) > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > She has only 5 minutes... :) > > sent from a dumbphone > > > On 04/09/2014, at 15:21, Brett Solomon > wrote: > > > > Congrats!! > > > > Please mention the 13 principles: > > > > Necessaryandproportionate.org > > > > Brett > > > > > > Sent from my phone > > > >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever > > > wrote: > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Dear Burcu, > >> > >> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the > Best > >> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ > >> > >> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong > >> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the > >> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was > organized > >> there. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Niels > >> > >> - -- > >> Niels ten Oever > >> Head of Digital > >> > >> Article 19 > >> www.article19.org > >> > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > >> > >>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Bestbits friends, > >>> > >>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am > >>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing > >>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind > >>> words -- very much appreciated. > >>> > >>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the > >>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Burcu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ You > >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . To unsubscribe or change your > >>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > >> > >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1 > >> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS > >> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E > >> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv > >> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL > >> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA= > >> =o/f5 > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 06:20:19 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:20:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting Message-ID: A very belated reminder that the IGC meeting is NOW in Bilateral Room 1, downstairs from the bottom of the escalors, on the left Thank you Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Sep 5 07:38:20 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:38:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony In-Reply-To: <54098779.7040809@itforchange.net> References: <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org> <54098779.7040809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5409A0AC.5050302@mail.utoronto.ca> This is indeed a very interesting case. With serious trade implications, not to mention health and safety issues. Was it discussed here at IGF? I must admit it is hard to navigate, there are so many sessions. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-09-05, 5:50, parminder wrote: > > Best wishes Burcu > > This is late in coming, but connecting IG to your area of work > directly, you may want to say something about how allocation of > .health tld to a group that talks about 'safe drugs' which as you know > is also US pharma's code word for US IP law complaint drugs impacts > access to health and medicines related rights of people... > > The owners of the .health are going to actually police this tld and it > wont be just an open tld that anyone can use.... This is a big set > back to public interest in this area, which highlights why ICANN > requires public interest oversight, which is really effective and > which related to global public interest.. > > parminder > > > On Friday 05 September 2014 03:15 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> rock it, Burcu! >> >> I would suggest that IGF 2015 gets revitalized, both in terms of >> format and dynamics, also building into previous innovative and >> creative ways of online public consultations to include people >> outside IG community... >> >> As it happens in other foras, it would be great if it can become an >> space also for makers, hackers, artists doing hands on activities >> to... save the net :) >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > > wrote: >> >> She has only 5 minutes... :) >> >> sent from a dumbphone >> >> > On 04/09/2014, at 15:21, Brett Solomon > > wrote: >> > >> > Congrats!! >> > >> > Please mention the 13 principles: >> > >> > Necessaryandproportionate.org >> > >> > Brett >> > >> > >> > Sent from my phone >> > >> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> Dear Burcu, >> >> >> >> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in >> the Best >> >> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ >> >> >> >> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong >> >> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the >> >> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was >> organized >> >> there. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Niels >> >> >> >> - -- >> >> Niels ten Oever >> >> Head of Digital >> >> >> >> Article 19 >> >> www.article19.org >> >> >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> 68E9 >> >> >> >>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Bestbits friends, >> >>> >> >>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am >> >>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing >> >>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind >> >>> words -- very much appreciated. >> >>> >> >>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the >> >>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions. >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> >> >>> Burcu >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . To unsubscribe or change your >> >>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) >> >> >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1 >> >> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS >> >> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E >> >> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv >> >> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL >> >> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA= >> >> =o/f5 >> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 5 08:16:36 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:46:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony In-Reply-To: <5409A0AC.5050302@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org> <54098779.7040809@itforchange.net> <5409A0AC.5050302@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1BF75C08-91FA-4C66-BB64-3BACFD59ECCA@hserus.net> To add a data point, closed TLDs that require domains to meet a set of critieria aren't particularly new - some of the very old ones include .int (for international organizations), .aero (for airlines), .museum etc. There does not appear to be a restraint of trade issue here, on the face of it - beyond which, any business at all can get a .com, .biz or whatever other TLD without any issues. --srs (iPad) > On 05-Sep-2014, at 17:08, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > This is indeed a very interesting case. With serious trade implications, not to mention health and safety issues. > Was it discussed here at IGF? I must admit it is hard to navigate, there are so many sessions. > Stephanie Perrin >> On 2014-09-05, 5:50, parminder wrote: >> >> Best wishes Burcu >> >> This is late in coming, but connecting IG to your area of work directly, you may want to say something about how allocation of .health tld to a group that talks about 'safe drugs' which as you know is also US pharma's code word for US IP law complaint drugs impacts access to health and medicines related rights of people... >> >> The owners of the .health are going to actually police this tld and it wont be just an open tld that anyone can use.... This is a big set back to public interest in this area, which highlights why ICANN requires public interest oversight, which is really effective and which related to global public interest.. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> On Friday 05 September 2014 03:15 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> rock it, Burcu! >>> >>> I would suggest that IGF 2015 gets revitalized, both in terms of format and dynamics, also building into previous innovative and creative ways of online public consultations to include people outside IG community... >>> >>> As it happens in other foras, it would be great if it can become an space also for makers, hackers, artists doing hands on activities to... save the net :) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> She has only 5 minutes... :) >>>> >>>> sent from a dumbphone >>>> >>>> > On 04/09/2014, at 15:21, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Congrats!! >>>> > >>>> > Please mention the 13 principles: >>>> > >>>> > Necessaryandproportionate.org >>>> > >>>> > Brett >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my phone >>>> > >>>> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> >> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear Burcu, >>>> >> >>>> >> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the Best >>>> >> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong >>>> >> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the >>>> >> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was organized >>>> >> there. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> Niels >>>> >> >>>> >> - -- >>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>> >> Head of Digital >>>> >> >>>> >> Article 19 >>>> >> www.article19.org >>>> >> >>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>> >> >>>> >>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Dear Bestbits friends, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am >>>> >>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing >>>> >>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind >>>> >>> words -- very much appreciated. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the >>>> >>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Burcu >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>>> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >>>> >>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >> >>>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) >>>> >> >>>> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1 >>>> >> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS >>>> >> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E >>>> >> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv >>>> >> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL >>>> >> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA= >>>> >> =o/f5 >>>> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Sep 5 08:47:06 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:47:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Renewal of the IGF Mandate: Please Sign on to the Letter Message-ID: <5409B0CA.1010708@mail.utoronto.ca> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: This is further to our message of September 4th, portions of which follow: At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on or before November 1. ....... UPDATE We have created a neutral website for this project at www.igfcontinuation.org, to accept sign-ons of organizations, countries, and individuals. Please note that this is a different URL from the one circulated yesterday. The undersigned will continue to collect your signatures and description of your organization if you have trouble signing on. As of 15:30 UTC+2, September 5 we have been open for signatures less than 24 hours, and we have 18 organizations, and 35 individuals. Examples of how you will be listed appear below, so please provide this information to us if you wish us to sign on for you. 1. Jane Smith Individual 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manufacturers of widgets 3. [Country x] Government Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 09:11:27 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:11:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <54096A0F.1000501@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> <54096A0F.1000501@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: This is not rocket science people. You could see over the years who has been trying to drum up support for the IGF. Parminder is being disingenuous. 30 seconds of searching brings the answers as well. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/new-association-launched-support-internet-governance-forum-and-its-essential-role-addressing "During the IGF Support Association General Assembly, the following individuals were elected to the Executive Committee: • Raúl Echeberría, Internet Society • Virat Bhatia, AT&T • Subi Chaturvedi, Media For Change • Marilyn Cade, mCADE • Cheryl Miller, Verizon • Avri Doria, Independent Researcher • Edmon Chung, DotAsia • Tarek Kamel, ICANN • Alice Munyua, CATIA • Chengetai Masango, IGF Secretariat (Non-voting member of Committee)" http://www.igfsa.org/ While not on this committee, Patrick ryan has been instrumental in keeping the issue on the table over the last few years. rgds, McTim On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > These are great questions Parminder, which I cannot answer. We were told > it was a new and viable effort to gather funding support. I am busy trying > to gather and input as many signatures as possible so that we have a decent > number to report by this afternoon....but I think others could answer those > questions. > Cheers Stephanie > > On 2014-09-04, 16:11, parminder wrote: > > > > My main problem with the letter - as I discussed today personally with > Jeanette and Stephanie - is the promotion in it of the IGF support > association - an unknown and as non transparent imitative as any . Its > civil society representation especially I do not understand and > appriciate... Where did the group come from, who formed it, why... And why > in the cover of something like the preservation of the IGF which issue > would rightly get great support, including perhaps from governments, this > unknown non transparent organisation is being promoted. Who are they? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 04 September 2014 07:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will send an > update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, UTC+2. > Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please indicate how > you would prefer this support to be expressed. > The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line. > Stephanie Perrin > > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 14:44:30 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:44:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Food for thought.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006601cfc939$6dd72990$49857cb0$@gmail.com> Thanks for this McTim… It is interesting to note that this piece took account of the French Platform Neutrality study (and my blogpost commentary on this) which has been more or less completely ignored among the 100’s if not 1000’s of emails that have circulated in the various IG related lists discussing Net Neutrality over the last months. As well, (based on what I’ve been able to glean) the “Platform Neutrality/Monopoly” issues have not been addressed at the IGF either. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:38 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Food for thought.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/09/03/why-internet-governance-should-be-left-to-the-engineers/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Sep 5 16:54:15 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 06:54:15 +1000 Subject: [governance] WEF Message-ID: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps and asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF. The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly with other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much better appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the opportunities for collaborative impact can be. As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement opportunities for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking. For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as well to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect feedback we have received. “ So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont know, and if anyone has further information please pass it on (confidentially if you wish). One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a lot of negative feedback on this. What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing. CSCG will not be doing anything without further clarification. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 5 17:03:23 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 21:03:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech Message-ID: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Dear colleagues: As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as closing ceremony speakers. The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 17:41:25 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 21:41:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, Thanks for sharing this. I just read the speech and I find it insightful. Well done! I didn't know there was a dreamer hiding behind those piercing eyes :) Now on a serious note, the challenge is to suppress the kind of inequalities and power imbalances that characterize the national state universe while building that rising Internet nation and claiming its independence. While the lines of demarcation of inequalities and imbalances will be different from the (physical) territorial universe to the cyber-universe, I am less optimistic about them (inequalities and imbalances) going away. Certainly not by themselves or by the virtue of the Internet's architecture and features. And as says Aristotle, "All virtue is summed up in dealing justly." Anyway, good job for sounding the note of singularity and diversity in civil society viewpoints! Mawaki On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear colleagues: > > As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as > closing ceremony speakers. > > The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ > > > > Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. > > > > Milton L Mueller > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Sep 5 19:35:11 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 01:35:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Making the IGF mandate permanent should have some strings attached for improved efficiency, such as revising its mandate and the MAG roles. Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:11 PM, parminder wrote: > > > My main problem with the letter - as I discussed today personally with > Jeanette and Stephanie - is the promotion in it of the IGF support > association - an unknown and as non transparent imitative as any . Its > civil society representation especially I do not understand and > appriciate... Where did the group come from, who formed it, why... And why > in the cover of something like the preservation of the IGF which issue > would rightly get great support, including perhaps from governments, this > unknown non transparent organisation is being promoted. Who are they? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 04 September 2014 07:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will send an > update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, UTC+2. > Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please indicate how > you would prefer this support to be expressed. > The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line. > Stephanie Perrin > > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Sep 5 23:48:44 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 23:48:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: References: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Video: English http://youtu.be/pVBLIxBiuKs?t=2h8m19s French http://youtu.be/nZcnd-MKm6c?t=2h8m19s Chinese http://youtu.be/Y86DKIDdhyQ?t=2h8m19s Turkish http://youtu.be/0kKK8oPdiug?t=2h8m19s On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Milton, > Thanks for sharing this. I just read the speech and I find it insightful. > Well done! I didn't know there was a dreamer hiding behind those piercing > eyes :) > Now on a serious note, the challenge is to suppress the kind of > inequalities and power imbalances that characterize the national state > universe while building that rising Internet nation and claiming its > independence. While the lines of demarcation of inequalities and imbalances > will be different from the (physical) territorial universe to the > cyber-universe, I am less optimistic about them (inequalities and > imbalances) going away. Certainly not by themselves or by the virtue of the > Internet's architecture and features. And as says Aristotle, "All virtue is > summed up in dealing justly." > > Anyway, good job for sounding the note of singularity and diversity in > civil society viewpoints! > > Mawaki > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Dear colleagues: >> >> As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as >> closing ceremony speakers. >> >> The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: >> >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ >> >> >> >> Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> Internet Governance Project >> >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Sep 6 03:02:37 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:02:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: References: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: IT was amusing to note that the MAG Chair Janis Karklins mentioned right after that his formal prepared speech became none relevant after Milton's speech and pointed out that what seemed impossible 10 years ago is now well accepted - so why not to have an independent cyberspace as Milton said 10 years later, or something like that. izumi 2014-09-06 12:48 GMT+09:00 Joly MacFie : > Video: > > English http://youtu.be/pVBLIxBiuKs?t=2h8m19s > > French http://youtu.be/nZcnd-MKm6c?t=2h8m19s > > Chinese http://youtu.be/Y86DKIDdhyQ?t=2h8m19s > > Turkish http://youtu.be/0kKK8oPdiug?t=2h8m19s > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Milton, >> Thanks for sharing this. I just read the speech and I find it insightful. >> Well done! I didn't know there was a dreamer hiding behind those piercing >> eyes :) >> Now on a serious note, the challenge is to suppress the kind of >> inequalities and power imbalances that characterize the national state >> universe while building that rising Internet nation and claiming its >> independence. While the lines of demarcation of inequalities and imbalances >> will be different from the (physical) territorial universe to the >> cyber-universe, I am less optimistic about them (inequalities and >> imbalances) going away. Certainly not by themselves or by the virtue of the >> Internet's architecture and features. And as says Aristotle, "All virtue is >> summed up in dealing justly." >> >> Anyway, good job for sounding the note of singularity and diversity in >> civil society viewpoints! >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues: >>> >>> As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as >>> closing ceremony speakers. >>> >>> The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: >>> >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. >>> >>> >>> >>> Milton L Mueller >>> >>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>> >>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >>> >>> Internet Governance Project >>> >>> http://internetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Sep 6 05:09:33 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 05:09:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <540ACF4D.1000802@mail.utoronto.ca> I certainly agree, but each separate issue is fraught with drafting problems....putting this in the letter would have taken a great deal of time to agree on what that accountability structure (or even goals) might be. I think a separate letter/discussion on accountability ought to be initiated, but I am betting (since Parminder started the betting thing ;-)) that we will not have negotiated that letter by November 1. It is well worth figuring out exactly what that strategy is....much money appears to be spent putting this process through the UN mechanism, but there are many risks by taking it outside the UN. Influencing UN accountability (by attaching strings) strikes me as a daunting proposal but I defer to you folks who know it so much better than I. Stephanie On 2014-09-05, 19:35, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Making the IGF mandate permanent should have some strings attached for > improved efficiency, such as revising its mandate and the MAG roles. > > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:11 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > > My main problem with the letter - as I discussed today personally > with Jeanette and Stephanie - is the promotion in it of the IGF > support association - an unknown and as non transparent imitative > as any . Its civil society representation especially I do not > understand and appriciate... Where did the group come from, who > formed it, why... And why in the cover of something like the > preservation of the IGF which issue would rightly get great > support, including perhaps from governments, this unknown non > transparent organisation is being promoted. Who are they? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 04 September 2014 07:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I >> will send an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm >> tomorrow, UTC+2. Qualified statements of support are also most >> welcome; please indicate how you would prefer this support to be >> expressed. >> The proper title for the attached document is listed in the >> Subject line. >> Stephanie Perrin >>> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: >>> >>> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various >>> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate >>> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the >>> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for >>> projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not >>> just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended >>> re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We >>> request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on >>> or before November 1. >>> >>> We will be creating a neutral website for this project at >>> www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, >>> countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will >>> collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are >>> able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF >>> 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair >>> will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. >>> Examples of how you will be listed appear below: >>> 1. Jane Smith Individual >>> 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets >>> 3. State of [x] Country >>> >>> Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu >>> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Sep 6 05:34:41 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:34:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408C780.60704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <540AD531.1090409@acm.org> On 04-Sep-14 23:11, parminder wrote: > is the promotion in it of the IGF support association - an unknown and > as non transparent imitative as any . Its civil society representation > especially I do not understand and appriciate... Where did the group > come from, who formed it, why... And why in the cover of something like > the preservation of the IGF which issue would rightly get great support, This group was initiated to collect money for the IGF, especially for the IGF secretariat. Since the only way to donate money to the IGF is by establishing a contract with the IGF Trust that the UN runs, another method for smaller donors was needed. The IGFSA, will establish such a contract with the UN Trust and will funnel the money collected into the trust. Those who volunteer for the IGFSA will not receive any remuneration. The effort was put forward by Markus Kummer on behalf of the Internet Society, and the Internet Society is donating secretariat service to the group for its first year. The group is being registered as a Swiss not for profit (articles of incorporation attached) and this is based upon the approval it received in the open meeting at the IGF2014 pre-event where a rather full room gave it strong support. Membership in the association is open to all, though a donation of $25 is required for individuals. There was a booth in the IGF villages where information on the effort was available to all participants at the meeting. There have also been numerous public announcements. There are already other donation collection methods. One established by Google was objected to because of the character of the organization picked to process those donations. But that is one mechanism that exists. There is no reason other competing fundraising initiatives could not also be created. As one of the people on the board of the IGF Support Association, I do not see my participation in any way as a civil society representative, though I see myself as doing my best to support civil society goals and interests. I see myself as a friend of the secretariat who was once a member of the secretariat, who wants to see it properly funded. I am participating as an individual who actively supports the IGF and has done so since before it was created, from the first recommendations the WGIG made for a forum, an idea which was included in the Tunis Agenda and has now been instantiated 9 times in global open multistakeholder events. In addition to having an open meeting to create the group at the IGF, there is every intention of making this a transparent effort. Not only will the fundraising activities be open, we intend to ask for as much transparency as we can get from the UN on how money donated through the trust fund is spent. I.e. to understand what percentage of funds donated go to the secretariat, support of fellows, meeting participants, overhead expenses and the like. Governments have not stepped up to support it as would have been optimal, though a few have. They have not made it a funded mandate and probably won't. Not so much because they are against it, as far as I can tell, but because new funded mandates are few and far between. To insist that a UN funded mandate is the only mandate we will accept would be tantamount to recommending the IGF cease operations. For me, this is my first effort ever, in a fundraising role. While I am not in any way a representative of civil society, I do plan to ask for civil society advice as we move along. In terms of mentioning it in the letter, the idea is to assure the UN, in its consideration of renewal, that there are efforts dedicated to making sure that this unfunded mandate is indeed properly funded. Of course, the effort has yet to prove it can actually deliver, but by next year at this time, we will have a better idea. Beyond that, if the fundraising effort is successful, there is the intent to also give support to regional IGF efforts and to participant support. I will note that my involvement with the effort began during the IGF itself when I was nominated to the boot-up board. Before that I knew of it from many announcements and Internet Society bulletins, but had never considered any involvement beyond joining and donating. When asked whether I would accept the nomination, I first said that I knew little about fund raising except for what I do for my attendance at these global meetings, but on consideration, decided, as a personal matter, that it was a commitment I was willing to make. While I understand that no effort can get universal acceptance by civil society, I do hope that most are able to see this as a well meaning effort to support a forum that most of us value greatly. I will do what I can to keep this group, as well as others I am involved with, informed and will be sure to make sure that our efforts are as transparent as possible. Our email list, which still has not seen much traffic has an open archive . I think we will have web sites and all the other accouterments once the association is formally incorporated. Hope this helps, avri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Support Association Articles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 119819 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 12:38:17 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 09:38:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: References: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <006201cfc9f0$f693f760$e3bbe620$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Mawaki and I agree. I think what people like Milton miss in the IG discussion is the issue of "power"... Who has it, how to get it, what the folks who have it currently use it for or are likely to use it for in the future. Governance is as much about controlling those with power or attempting to redistribute power as it is about anything else. To willfully ignore the power issues in IG is to more or less completely misrepresent/misunderstand the most significant issues. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:41 PM To: Internet Governance; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech Milton, Thanks for sharing this. I just read the speech and I find it insightful. Well done! I didn't know there was a dreamer hiding behind those piercing eyes :) Now on a serious note, the challenge is to suppress the kind of inequalities and power imbalances that characterize the national state universe while building that rising Internet nation and claiming its independence. While the lines of demarcation of inequalities and imbalances will be different from the (physical) territorial universe to the cyber-universe, I am less optimistic about them (inequalities and imbalances) going away. Certainly not by themselves or by the virtue of the Internet's architecture and features. And as says Aristotle, "All virtue is summed up in dealing justly." Anyway, good job for sounding the note of singularity and diversity in civil society viewpoints! Mawaki On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Dear colleagues: As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as closing ceremony speakers. The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mehrzad.azghandi at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 10:46:03 2014 From: mehrzad.azghandi at gmail.com (Mehrzad.azghandi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 19:16:03 +0430 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7391B625-DF9E-458A-8ECA-40176D26DC43@gmail.com> Dear Milton, Thanks for sharing. I was really excited to hear the idea, which I believe will open new sights to the future of Internet society and Internet architecture. One of the main feature of globalization is the acceptance of diversity, as it is addressed by MS model in IGF discussions. So I think that Michael's and Mawaki's notes which point out obstacles for this idea, namely, the power, may lead us to a complementary idea, probably the formation of various and diverse cyber colonies or cyber civilizations( let me name them CCs!) ,who will be in dealing with each other; trying to be balanced and enriching their common capabilities; for instance by establishing their own cyber laws and cyber security systems, etc. Empowered CCs with common interests and common concerns, who desire to dominate their own Internet environment, based on to their culture, profession, religion, etc, and despite of their geographical location and nationalities may be the solution for the future of Cyberspace independency respecting the diversity. Any way, I believe you have started the brainstorm very well, and there are long way to reach an executable recipe. Too many dreamers should be joined for this ;) Best regards Mehrzad Sent from my iPad > On Sep 6, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Dear colleagues: > As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as closing ceremony speakers. > The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ > > Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. > > Milton L Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 8 15:10:33 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 19:10:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: <006201cfc9f0$f693f760$e3bbe620$@gmail.com> References: <38eab425ad9640b68690f557ca878291@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <006201cfc9f0$f693f760$e3bbe620$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <92f023c7e6ad4089955dc625c4747b61@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Mawaki Thanks for your note. I have certainly thought extensively about the issue you raise but in 5 minutes there is only so much you can say. What I clearly did not say, anywhere or at any time, is that power inequalities will or could go away. Anyone who says that is either lying or woefully ignorant of human nature and human history. However, the opportunities for a more just and freedom-enhancing distribution of power increases, I think, in the newer political community that is being created. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:41 PM To: Internet Governance; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] IGF closing ceremony speech Milton, Thanks for sharing this. I just read the speech and I find it insightful. Well done! I didn't know there was a dreamer hiding behind those piercing eyes :) Now on a serious note, the challenge is to suppress the kind of inequalities and power imbalances that characterize the national state universe while building that rising Internet nation and claiming its independence. While the lines of demarcation of inequalities and imbalances will be different from the (physical) territorial universe to the cyber-universe, I am less optimistic about them (inequalities and imbalances) going away. Certainly not by themselves or by the virtue of the Internet's architecture and features. And as says Aristotle, "All virtue is summed up in dealing justly." Anyway, good job for sounding the note of singularity and diversity in civil society viewpoints! Mawaki On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Dear colleagues: As you probably know by now, both Burcu Kilic and I were accepted as closing ceremony speakers. The text of my speech, which went over well, can be seen here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/09/05/internet-nation/ Thanks again to the CSCG for nominating us both. Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From emilar at apc.org Tue Sep 9 04:36:06 2014 From: emilar at apc.org (Emilar Vushe - Gandhi) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 10:36:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Applications for the second African Internet Governance School 2014 In-Reply-To: <540EBA8B.4070700@apc.org> References: <540EBA8B.4070700@apc.org> Message-ID: <540EBBF6.7010602@apc.org> Apologies for repeat and cross posts. Emilar ---------------------- APC and the NEPAD Planning Agency e-Africa Programme call for applications to the African School on Internet Governance to be held from 23 - 26 November 2014. The venue of the school will be advised in due course. For more information on the courses that will be covered and how to apply please visit: http://www.apc.org/en/news/call-applications-second-african-internet-governan Regards, -- Emilar E. Gandhi CIPP Africa Projects Coordinator Communications and Information Policy Programme (CIPP) Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org skype: emilarvushe -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 09:58:21 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:58:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal now announced. Nominations till October 20. Message-ID: From: Chengetai Masango Date: Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:20 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG renewal To: MAG-public Dear All, I hope you all had a good trip back home. The MAG renewal announcement is up on the IGF Website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2039-mag-renewal-announcement The nomination deadline is *20 October 2014 *(no extension of the deadline envisioned). Best regards, Chengetai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Wed Sep 10 01:59:10 2014 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:59:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal now announced. Nominations till October 20. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1410328750.48093.YahooMailNeo@web133204.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Bien merci Nnenna. Cordialement NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Mardi 9 septembre 2014 16h59, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : From: Chengetai Masango Date: Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:20 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG renewal To: MAG-public Dear All, I hope you all had a good trip back home. The MAG renewal announcement is up on the IGF Website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2039-mag-renewal-announcement The nomination deadline is 20 October 2014 (no extension of the deadline envisioned). Best regards, Chengetai ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 10:39:17 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:39:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] DiploFoundation Cybersecurity course application deadline approaches Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-posting, but I think some of you may be interested) gp Colleagues, The call for applications for DiploFoundation's advanced thematic course in Cybersecurity closes in a few days. The course starts in October. More details about this course is available below or at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-security. Please share this announcement with friends or colleagues who may be interested to apply. Thanks! Ginger Cybersecurity *Course details:* Today’s headlines often feature the word ‘cyber’, reporting on threats related to the virtual world: online child abuse, stolen credit cards and virtual identities, malware and viruses, botnets and denial-of-service attacks on corporate or government servers, cyber-espionage, and cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure including nuclear facilities and power supply networks. What are the real cybersecurity challenges? What is the role of diplomacy, international legal instruments, and regional and national policies in addresses these threats, and how efficient are they? How does international cooperation in cybersecurity work, and what are the roles of the various stakeholders? The 10-week advanced thematic course in Cybersecurity covers policy challenges, actors, and initiatives related to cybersecurity, and specifically to cybercrime, security of the core infrastructure, cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism, and Internet safety. By the end of the course, participants should be able to: - Identify the defining features of cybersecurity, and the factors which shape the international issues. - Identify principal threats to cybersecurity; describe and analyse the key cybersecurity issues for users, and states. - Understand and analyse the Internet security issues for e-commerce including online banking and identity. - Explain the issues involved in cybercrime, its impact and investigation. - Understand the threats to the core Internet infrastructure. - Explain the concepts of cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism, and their role in international Internet policy. - Understand and assess the challenges involved in social aspects of cybersecurity. - Explain and analyse the international frameworks for cybersecurity policies and strategies. The course forms part of the Thematic Phase of Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) . This phase offers in-depth courses that provide deeper understanding of a particular issue. Other courses forming part of this phase - which may run simultaneously or at a later date - include ICT Policy and Strategic Planning , E-participation , History of Internet Governance , Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources , Intellectual Property Rights , and Privacy and Personal Data Protection . Excerpt from course materials *‘...One side-effect of the rapid integration of the Internet in almost all aspects of human activity is the increased vulnerability of modern society. The Internet is part of the global critical infrastructure. Other core services of modern society, such as electric grids, transport systems, and health services are increasingly dependent on the Internet. As attacks on these systems may cause severe disruption and have huge financial consequences, they are frequent targets.’ *(Lexture text 4.3) Course outline The thematic course in Cybersecurity includes one week of hypertext practice and platform familiarisation and introduction, and eight in-depth course texts: *Chapter 1. Introduction to security* discusses the historical development of cybersecurity, and distinguishes between the common, narrow, understanding of cybersecurity related to cyber-threats, and broader views which include information security and ‘friendly’ cyber conquest through technological standardisation dominance. *Chapter 2. Cybersecurity threats and building trust* reviews common security threats to individuals, such as malware (including spyware, Trojans, viruses), phishing, e-scams and identity theft. To better understand the security-enabling infrastructure, the chapter explains the basics of the authentication and Public Key Infrastructure, including PIN codes and other identifiers, randomly generated passwords and e-signatures, and touches upon the challenge of identity and anonymity online. It concludes by looking at ways to build trust in e-commerce and e-services. *Chapter 3. Cybercrime* attempts to define and classify cybercrime while reviewing the history of spam, viruses, intrusion, worms, Trojan horses, denial-of-service attacks and cyber-stalking, and also analyses its economic and social impacts. The chapter then focuses on combatting cybercrime: existing legal frameworks at the global and regional levels, jurisdiction challenges and various law enforcement approaches, computer investigation and e-forensics. *Chapter 4. Security of the core Internet infrastructure* explains briefly how the critical components of the Internet work, and discusses the political dimension of global security - the (unilateral) control over the DNS - and technical vulnerabilities such as domain name hijacking, packet interception, DNS poisoning, and DNS spoofing. The chapter also explains the recent technological security upgrade titled DNSSec, and related technical and policy challenges. It then looks at the expected challenges of future networks: Internet of Things/Next Generation Networks and ‘smart networks’. *Chapter 5. Cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare *looks at the security and protection of the critical infrastructure - the Internet infrastructure and also water supply facilities, transport, industrial facilities and power plants. It discusses cyberterrorism and possible counteracts, and analyses Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. It also discusses cyberwarfare, reviews the attempts to codify international law with regards to cyberwar, and refers to existing international initiatives and norms and their possible application in cyberspace (i.e. the Geneva Conventions). *Chapter 6. Social aspects of cybersecurity*: correlating privacy with security is our first task in this module, with special reflection on social media challenges. We attempt to define online safety, and scan through the challenges of the Web 2.0 era where users are the contributors and the Internet is ubiquitous. We then look at child safety, including cyber-bullying, abuse and sexual exploitation, and violent games, and discuss the ways to address these challenges through policy, education and technology. *Chapter 7. Internet safety*: touching upon openness and online freedoms, we look at some of the main issues faced when dealing with Internet safety, including objectionable and harmful content. We then analyse the reliability of information, and look at ethics, health and gender issues. *Chapter 8. Internet security policies and strategies:* we dive deeply into the existing legal and policy frameworks. We start with the international framework, including the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, the ITU Global Security Agenda, the Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative and the OSCE. We also look at regional policies and strategies including European Union, African Union and the Organisation of American States. We review business initiatives in the field of cybersecurity, including initiatives by Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and SAFEcode, and discuss the importance and risks of public-private partnerships. Reviews ‘The course is updated with the latest security issues, so we have a global view of what is going on now, and what organisations are involved at international level in the fight against cybercriminality.’ ‘... [the course lecturer] has been very encouraging to think on even the different side which may not be very popular side. So both pros and cons of the issues come to light in the class, encouraging deeper learning.’ *Who should apply:* Diplo seeks applications from the following, from both developed and developing countries: - Officials in government ministries, departments, judicial or regulatory institutions dealing with security and/or ICT-related policy issues (e.g. security and defence, foreign affairs, justice, telecommunications); - Experts and officials in intergovernmental, international and regional organisations in charge of security cooperation, justice and home affairs, defence or Internet and ICT policy; - Academics, researchers and postgraduate students in the field of security and/or Internet; - Professionals from the corporate sector in charge of Internet and security policies; - Journalists and staff of non-governmental organisations, covering issues of Internet rights and security. This course may also be of interest to: - Practising diplomats, civil servants, and others working in international relations who want to refresh or expand their knowledge on the subject, under the guidance of experienced practitioners and academics. - Postgraduate students of diplomacy or international relations wishing to study topics not offered through their university programmes or diplomatic academies and to gain deeper insight through interaction with practising diplomats. *Methodology:* This course is conducted online over a period of ten weeks, including one week of classroom orientation, eight weeks of dynamic class content and activities, and one week for the final assignment. Reading materials and tools for online interaction are provided through an online classroom. Each week, participants read the provided lecture texts, adding comments, references, and questions in the form of hypertext entries. The tutor and other participants read and respond to these entries, creating interaction based on the lecture text. During the week, participants complete additional online activities (e.g. further discussion via blogs or forums or quizzes). At the end of the week, participants and tutors meet online in a chat room to discuss the week’s topic. Courses are based on a collaborative approach to learning, involving a high level of interaction. This course requires a minimum of 7-8 hours of study time per week. Participants are invited to join Diplo’s global Internet governance online community of over 1,400 members, and to attend monthly webinars and other IG-related events and activities. The course materials, the e-learning platform, and the working language of the course is English. Applicants should consider whether their reading and writing skills in English are sufficient to follow postgraduate level materials and discussion. *Prerequistes:* Applicants for the certificate course must have: - Either completed the course Introduction to Internet Governance, or have equivalent knowledge of Internet governance issues, or experience in the field, or experience of the multistakeholder approach in international affairs; - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay assignments); - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient, although broadband is preferable); - A minimum of 7-8 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times). *Fees:* Course fees: - €650 (Diplo Certificate Course) Applicants must pay full fees upon official acceptance into the course. The fee includes: - Full tuition - Course orientation pack where applicable (optional readings) - Access to all course materials online, via Diplo’s online classroom - Personal interaction via the online classroom with course lecturers, staff and other participants - Online technical support - For Diplo Certificate Courses, postgraduate-level certificate issued by DiploFoundation on successful completion of course requirements (interaction and participation, all assignments) Financial assistance A limited number of partial scholarships (maximum 20%) will be offered to participants from developing and emerging countries. Participants who would like to apply for financial assistance must upload the following documents with their application: - a CV or resumé; - a motivation letter outlining relevant professional and educational background, and interest in the course. As Diplo's ability to offer scholarship support is limited, candidates are strongly encouraged to seek scholarship funding directly from local or international institutions. Our guide to *Finding Scholarships for Online Study *may provide you with some useful starting points. *How to apply:* Applicants for certificate courses should apply online. Late applications will be considered if there are spaces available in the course. Please e-mail ig at diplomacy.edu to request a deadline extension. *Learn more* about certificate and accredited courses , and about learning with Diplo . ------------------------------ Cancellation Policy Diplo reserves the right to cancel this course if enrolment is insufficient. In case of cancellation, Diplo will notify applicants shortly after the application deadline. Applicants who have paid an application fee may apply this fee towards another course or receive a refund. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 16:54:32 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:54:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Civil Society MAG Appointments - Call for comments Message-ID: Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) nominations and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) might play. The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with no active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the first time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements between our groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. To remedy this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a more comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates. In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday (September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your comments are sought on the following. TIMETABLE The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition member will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated with others at a later stage Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection criteria Tues, September 30 - close of nominations October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from various coalitions October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names to lists October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat. Your comments on this are welcome. PROCEDURES The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, but your input is welcome. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for civil society appointments is received. 1. CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by either one of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS involvement. When such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has been requested and, in a case where CS already has representation, consult with existing representatives in clarifying the involvement required. 2. CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary responsibility of each constituency. 3. Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as part of any process must announce that intention before a call for candidates is announced, and may nominate another representative of their coalition to take their place on the Nomcom. 4. CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates. 5. CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process. 6. A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each nomination process. 7. Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition will issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to CSCG at the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to shortlist their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to forward all names received 8. Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked to address selection criteria in their nominations. 9. The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who choose not to participate in a particular process. 10. The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances suggest otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a shortlisting process, which will assist in identifying most favoured candidates and which candidates should be examined more closely. Following from shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication of which candidates should be selected, Nomcom members will arrive at the final candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary conference linkups to determine the final slates. 11. All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests of civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in determining appropriate representatives 12. All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance in determining their final selections, while considering also the need for the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society to be represented. While realising that complete balance will not be able to be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members are requested to take into account any such deficits in balances in previous CSCG decisions in making selections, with an objective of achieving balance over a period of time which may not be achievable in every particular case. 13. The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the process is completed. SELECTION CRITERIA The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your comments (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate of candidates) 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues 2. Consultative style 3. Previous attendee at IGF 4. Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for candidates will be issued on Thursday, September 18. Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG) CSCG members are: Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 06:13:09 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Civil Society MAG Appointments - Call for comments In-Reply-To: <16b751fbe9b9e4049d2b9b56f5420a2f@eff.org> References: <16b751fbe9b9e4049d2b9b56f5420a2f@eff.org> Message-ID: <6BD1FD11-C95B-44CB-A253-79FDA6EF1C33@gmail.com> Hi Sorry for cross-posting but I’m copying IGC as if memory serves my nomination was endorsed there. FWIW, I have now served for three years on the MAG and want to rotate off in the next cycle. There are other CS people who’ve worked hard on pushing boulders up hill who will also be departing, but I leave it to them to state this. Civil society desperately needs to have serious and strategically oriented representatives who are committed to advancing CS’s objectives in an environment where NETmundial has endorsed the IGF strengthening we’d long advocated but conservative proponents of a staid status quo are quite good at process bending. CS participants need to work together, and to actively coordinate with MAG members from other stakeholder groups that may be in agreement on particular issues. Despite the efforts of a few, this frequently has not been achieved in recent years. So I really hope some dedicated people will be nominated. To the selection criteria below you might want to add having a clear understanding of a) civil society concerns and objectives, and b) the strategic objectives and behavior of other stakeholders represented on the MAG, and an ability to respond to these quickly and effectively as needed. If there’s a joint CSCG submission, you might want to note that the coalitions that have worked on IG for years and contributed heavily to building the IGF remain concerned about their frequent inability to get the qualified people they nominate onto the MAG, with the result that CS has often been ineffectively represented. This has had significant consequences for not only CS but by extension the IGF itself. These concerns are even sharper now in light of the NETmundial mandate, so insist that people selected be involved in CS work and networks and be seriously committed to engagement, and that the names you’re forwarding meet these criteria. See what happens when this goes into the black box at DESA. Best, Bill On Sep 12, 2014, at 8:56 PM, jmalcolm wrote: > Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) nominations and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) might play. > > The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with no active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the first time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements between our groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. To remedy this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a more comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates. > > In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday (September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your comments are sought on the following. > > TIMETABLE > > The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition member will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated with others at a later stage > > Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection criteria > Tues, September 30 - close of nominations > October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from various coalitions > October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names to lists > October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat. > > Your comments on this are welcome. > > PROCEDURES > > The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, but your input is welcome. > > The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for civil society appointments is received. > > 1. CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by either one of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS involvement. When such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has been requested and, in a case where CS already has representation, consult with existing representatives in clarifying the involvement required. > > 2. CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary responsibility of each constituency. > > 3. Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as part of any process must announce that intention before a call for candidates is announced, and may nominate another representative of their coalition to take their place on the Nomcom. > > 4. CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates. > > 5. CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process. > > 6. A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each nomination process. > > 7. Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition will issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to CSCG at the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to shortlist their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to forward all names received > > 8. Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked to address selection criteria in their nominations. > > 9. The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who choose not to participate in a particular process. > > 10. The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances suggest otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a shortlisting process, which will assist in identifying most favoured candidates and which candidates should be examined more closely. Following from shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication of which candidates should be selected,  Nomcom members will arrive at the final candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary conference linkups to determine the final slates. > > 11. All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests of civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in determining appropriate representatives > > 12. All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance in determining their final selections, while considering also the need for the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society to be represented.  While realising that complete balance will not be able to be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members are requested to take into account any such deficits in balances in previous CSCG decisions in making selections, with an objective of achieving balance over a period of time which may not be achievable in every particular case. > > 13. The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the process is completed. > > > > SELECTION CRITERIA > > The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your comments (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate of candidates) > > > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues > > 2. Consultative style > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF > > 4. Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups > > > > A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for candidates will be issued on Thursday, September 18. > > Ian Peter > > (Independent Chair, CSCG) > > > > CSCG members are: > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes > > Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 21:05:53 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:05:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks on FinFisher Message-ID: According to recent whistleblowing by Wikileaks: See: https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles4/customers.html " Through FinFisher's support and feedback platform, customers could provide feedback, open support request and obtain updates to the products they acquired. The majority of customers are just identified by a 8 digits long alphanumeric username, the few recognizable usernames revealed names of third companies such as *Cobham Surveillance GmbH* in Germany, *Dyplex Communications Ltd* in Canada, *Elaman GmbH* in Germany and *Trovicor GmbH* in Germany. It's important to notice that none of them have product licenses associated with them, meaning they might be distribution partners, rather than actual customers. Some customers were identified through the analysis of support requests and attached documents they provided to FinFisher support. This included Slovakia , Mongolia , Qatar State Security, South Africa , Bahrain , Pakistan , Estonia , Vietnam , Australia NSW Police, Belgium , Nigeria , Netherlands KLPD, PCS Security in Singapore , Bangladesh , Secret Services of Hungary , Italy and Bosnia & Herzegovina Intelligence. Provided with the price list, we calculated an estimation of the profit FinFisher generated through the sale of surveillance products. Applying the retail price to all the licenses available in the database, they amount to a total of *EURO 47,550,196*, or EURO 98,362,554 if we consider all the licenses marked as "deleted" too. Consider that the FinFly ISP licenses were not taken into account as no price as provided, and that support and training costs were not included in this estimation. Therefore we could realistically expect a higher number. In the following table you can browse through each customer record, read their support requests, see the licenses they acquired, whether they are customers at the time of this publication and an estimation of how much money was invested in the acquisition of such licenses. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Mon Sep 15 06:20:00 2014 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:20:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Annual Report on Net Neutrality Message-ID: Dear all (apologies for cross-posting), FYI, the 2014 Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality “Network Neutrality: an Ongoing Regulatory Debate” is available at http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html Outline of the Annual Report: Preface (Vint Cerf)Introduction - Network Neutrality: an Unfinished Debate (Luca Belli & Primavera De Filippi)The net neutrality service model and specialized services (Frode Sørensen)Net Neutrality: an overview of enacted laws in Latin America (Patricia Vargas-Leon)Network Neutrality debates in Telecommunications Reform –Actors, Incentives, Risks (Alejandro Pisanty)Net Neutrality in Australia: an emerging debate (Angela Daly)A New Way Forward for Net Neutrality (Chris Riley)There’s no economic imperative to reconsider on open Internet (Benoît Felten)Net Neutrality Regulation and Broadband Infrastructure Investment: How to Make an Empirical Assessment (Roslyn Layton) Best regards, Luca Belli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Mon Sep 15 06:22:03 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:22:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] [SIMPDA 2014] Submission deadline extended to September 22, 2014 Message-ID: <00f801cfd0ce$e469e7e0$ad3db7a0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this CFP] ############################################################################ Fourth International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis ################################ SIMPDA 2014 ############################### - http://simpda2014.di.unimi.it/ - IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 - - Milano, Italy, November 19th-21th - # About SIMPDA # With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the symposium will be held in Milan, the city of Expo 2015. # Call for Papers # The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2014) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from: http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume which will be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review. -- Topics -- Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: - Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods - Data-aware and data-centric approaches - Variability and configuration of process models - Process Mining with Big Data - Process simulation and static analyses - Process data query languages - Process data mining - Privacy-aware process data mining - Process metadata and semantic reasoning - Process patterns and standards - Foundations of business process models - Resource management in business process execution - Process tracing and monitoring - Process change management and evolution - Business process lifecycle - Case studies and experience reports - Social process discovery - Crowdsourced process definition and discovery # Important Dates # - EXTENDED Submission of Full Papers: September 22nd, 2014 - EXTENDED Submission of PhD Research Plans: September 22nd, 2014 - Notification of Acceptance: October 15th, 2014 - Submission of Camera Ready Papers: November 10th, 2014 -- Workshop Format -- In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop: The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students. Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be prepared with particular care, making ready comments and suggestions. The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session. The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges during which every participant will be asked to assemble their thoughts/project/ideas/goals/etc that they got out of the workshop. # Call for PhD Research Plans # The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social implications. Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized following the following structure: Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance. Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the relevant the research questions. Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant references (papers or books). Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the specific contribution. Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results, limitations of the approach. Research stage: describes what the student has done so far. - SIMPDA PhD award - A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research plan submitted. # Student Scholarships # An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it # Keynote Speakers # Jorge Cardoso University of Coimbra, Portugal - Compliance of Business Processes with Reference Models - Reference models provide best practices to design effective and efficient business processes. However, a main challenge is to evaluate how these best practices are implemented. One limitation of existing approaches is the assumption that compliance can be determined using the notion of process equivalence. Nonetheless, the use of equivalence algorithms is not suitable since two models can have different structures but one process can still be compliant with the other. This talk presents an approach to measure the compliance of process models with reference models, which was used by a German passenger airline using IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) reference models. The talk also covers various initiatives to evaluate the quality and understandability of process models. # Industrial Talks # Claudia Sebastiani Creativi Quadrati, Partner openERP - Business Process Measurement in small enterprises after the installation of an ERP software - We report the observation of the first six months of operation after the installation of an ERP software in a group of small Italian enterprises (some dealers of various products and one manufacturer). Before the ERP, no explicit process descriptions existed within the companies: the operations were manually performed, using office automation software or legacy programs that were not process oriented. The new ERP is equipped with a workflow engine, a number of standard processes that should be followed by the users, and a tracking system that logs the main steps of the processes. We use process mining tools to analyze the events logged by the ERP during the sales, the purchases and the manufacture cycles. Our aim is to 1) compare the ideal processes suggested by the ERP with the real paths followed by the users 2) describe the eventual adaptation of these paths, as the users became acquainted with the ERP 3) highlight critical segments in terms of time spent, iterations, etc. 4) compare the processes of different companies that are in similar business areas. The final goal is to get a better understanding of the processes and a rationalization of the operations. It must be stressed that both the ERP and the main tools used are open source, so that the process measurement is affordable even for very small (micro) enterprises. Gregorio Piccoli Zucchetti - Hierarchical clustering for managers - Data Mining and Process Mining over big amount of data are today more and more requested by companies. However managers do not have the necessary competences for handling the results of analysis ran using these techniques. For this reason data visualization is a key element to exploit the full potential of data analysis. Zucchetti spa has developed an in-house approach for constructing user-friendly data visualizers. Gabriele Ruffatti Engineering Ingegneria Informatica - A living story: measuring quality of developments in a large industrial software factory with Open Source Software - Open Source has no more intrinsic value per se. Nowadays it is facing new challenges, such as stimulating creativity and bringing innovation into market. One of its major challenges consists in delivering valuable outcomes, which requires a PMAI approach: Plan metrics and dimensions of analysis, get Measures and global performance value from data, Assess results and Improve processes by solving issues and removing bottlenecks. Engineering Group uses Open Source Software to makes this happen. Spago4Q, the analytic of the business intelligence suite SpagoBI, allows the company to measure the quality of products, processes and services and to monitor the continuous improvement of quality practices. The measurement and enhancement of productivity complies with quality certifications such as ISO and CMMi standards. QESTnd - an n-dimensional measurement model - allows to collect performance values on three dimensions of analysis (Economical, Social and Technical) in order to identify process areas that need improvements. Drill-down capabilities provide both a unified view of the global performance of the Labs and detailed views of the single process dimensions. # Organizers # CHAIRS - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Barbara Russo, Free University of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy ADVISORY BOARD - Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia - Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada - Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Philippe Cudre-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland # Program Committee # - Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany - Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux, France - Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany - Helen Balinsky, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, UK - Valentina Emilia Balas, University of Arad, Romania - Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France - George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK - Richard Chbeir, University of Bourgogne, France - Gregorio Martinez Perez, University of Murcia, Spain - Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada - Jan Mendling, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria - Farookh Hussain, University of Technology Sydney, Australia - Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE - Wil Van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands - Ronald Maier, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Marco Montali, Free Unviersity of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy - Elizabeth Chang, University New South Wales, Australia - Peter Spyns, Flemish Government, Belgium - Angelo Corallo, University of Salento, Italy - Antonio Mana Gomez, University of Málaga, Spain - Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestinian Territory - Isabella Seeber, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Chi Hung, Tsinghua University, China - Alessandra Toninelli, Engineering Group, Italy - Haris Mouratidis, University of Brighton, UK - Abder Koukam, University of Technology, UTBM France - Fabrizio Maria Maggi, University of Tartu, Estonia - Massimiliano De Leoni, Eindhoven TU, Netherlands - Edgar Weippl, TU Vienna, Austria - Pnina Soffer, University of Haifa, Israel - Jianmin Wang, Tsinghua University Beijing, China - Minseok Song, UNIST, South Korea - Roland Rieke, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany - Josep Carmona, UPC - Barcelona, Spain - Mark Strembeck, WU Vienna, Austria - Matthias Weidlich, Imperial College, UK - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux - Maria Leitner, University of Vienna, Austria - Benoit Depaire, University of Hasselt, Belgium - Barbara Weber, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Babiga Birregah, University of Technology of Troyes, France # Historical Information on Previous Editions # SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis. The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series. Several events and activities arose off these symposia, among the most notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars: - Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29, 2010. - Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29, 2010. The venue was for both editions Campione d'Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Sep 15 16:03:47 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:03:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_NOW=3A_After_Istanbul_=E2=80=93_An?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Internet_Governance_Forum_2014_Debrief?= Message-ID: Just starting. So many hours of meetings, all of them high quality discussions. It will be interesting to see what stands out to those who were there. joly posted: "Today, Monday 15 September 2014 at 4pm EDT the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC DC) will present a discussion 'After Istanbul – An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief'. From September 2 - 5. More than 3,000 delegates attended" [image: IGF debrief] Today, *Monday 15 September 2014* at *4pm EDT* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society* (ISOC DC) will present a discussion *‘After Istanbul – An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief ‘*. >From September 2 – 5. More than 3,000 delegates attended the *2014 Internet Governance Forum *in Istanbul, Turkey to debate critical issues affecting the future of the Internet, including online privacy, censorship, cybersecurity, the NetMundial initiative, and the evolution of ICANN. This audience participation event will run over what was learned and achieved. Discussion Leaders: *Ambassador David Gross* (Wiley Rein); *Andrew Mack* (AMGlobal); *Steve DelBianco* (NetChoice}; *Natalie Green*(Public Knowledge). Moderator: *Michael Nelson* (CCT Program, Georgetown University). *What*: After Istanbul – An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief *Where*: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC *When*: Monday 15 September 2014 4pm-6pm EDT | 2000-2200 UTC *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf2014debrief *Twitter*: @isocdc | #igf2014 Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6995 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 02:43:31 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:43:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 Message-ID: Hi The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December 2014. This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF. If the meetings turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking about “what worked and what did not” in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015 meeting in Brazil. Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced in advance and will be able to attend. Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming might want to start looking into options now. There should be some bits of financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies. Others will have to find their own way. I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic. Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website. I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and experience. Don’t know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe the civil society group would really benefit from something like this. Best Bill *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 11:08:07 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:08:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> Message-ID: <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> Hi On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to > the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms. > > If this > doesn't happen at the December meeting, it could be set up online > independently. It might also be worth considering setting up a more > long-term mechanism to ensure continuity and knowledge-transfer, through an > advisory group of ex civil society MAG members or something similar. Good ideas if someone wants to put the energy into it….we’ve got ten years of CS @ MAG and no readily accessible institutional memory. > > Regardless of the new reps, do you know if there will be a way for the > broader community to shape the agenda of the December meeting? Normally this is a pretty standard format event, I don’t recall that there was ever much bottom up input but others can correct me. Doubt it was said they’d not accept some. Either way, we could start. If for example there was a broad-based CS letter saying that part of the time should be set aside for a serious discussion of the NETmundial mandate and otherwise strengthening the IGF (WGIGF etc), and we could point the Chair, Secretariat, and MAG to this and say hey there’s community desire to talk about this, one suspects they would not ignore the request. But absent anyone calling for something different, it could default to the somewhat sleepy "review of the meeting” format in which people bounce around on how many workshops and main sessions and speakers per etc. Bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: 17 September 2014 07:44 > To: Best Bits; Governance > Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 > December 2014 > > Hi > > The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG > meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December > 2014. This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing > civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for > follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF. If the meetings > turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking > about "what worked and what did not" in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the > wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it > will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015 > meeting in Brazil. Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced > in advance and will be able to attend. > > Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming > might want to start looking into options now. There should be some bits of > financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC's), > Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies. Others will have to find > their own way. > > I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil > society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic. > Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website. > > I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to > come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that > we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and > experience. Don't know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe > the civil society group would really benefit from something like this. > > Best > > Bill > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Wed Sep 17 11:11:33 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:11:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] [IWSAC 2014] Submission deadline extended: September 30, 2014 Message-ID: <016401cfd289$aacfa080$006ee180$@unimi.it> ***Submission deadline extended to September 30, 2014*** [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************** SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURITY ASSURANCE IN THE CLOUD (IWSAC 2014) Held in conjunction with the 10th International Conference on Signal Image Technology & Internet Based Systems (SITIS 2014) One day between November 23-27, 2014, Marrakech, Morocco Web site: http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014 IWSAC 2014 BACKGROUND AND GOALS The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the Cloud computing paradigm provides a new environment fostering the integration of services located within company boundaries with those in the Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business processes and applications via runtime composition of services made available in the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and threats, and requires re-thinking of current assurance, development, testing, and verification methodologies. In particular, security assurance in the cloud is becoming a pressing need to increase the confidence of the cloud actors that the cloud and its services are behaving as expected, and requires novel approaches addressing SOA and cloud peculiarities. IWSAC 2014 is the continuation of the International Workshop on Securing Services on the Cloud, held in September 2011, Milan, Italy. It aims to address the security assurance issues related to the deployment of services in the Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on traditional security solutions for software and network systems. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security and assurance of services implemented in the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Authentication and access control in the cloud * Challenges in moving critical systems to the cloud * Cloud accountability * Cloud audit * Cloud compliance * Cloud certification * Cloud transparency, introspection, and outrospection * Cybersecurity in the cloud * Data security and privacy in the Cloud * Information assurance and trust management * Intrusion detection in the Cloud * Security assurance in the cloud * Security and assurance protocols in the Cloud * Service level agreements * Service procurement in the cloud * Service verification in critical cloud services * Test-based and monitoring-based verification of cloud services IMPORTANT DATES EXTENDED Paper submission due: September 30, 2014 (11:59 PM American Samoa time) *FIRM* Notification to authors: October 9, 2014 Camera-ready due: October 15, 2014 Registration due: October 19, 2014 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop with proceedings. Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and must follow the IEEE double columns publication format available at - [Microsoft Word DOC] ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc - [LaTex Formatting Macros] ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip A maximum of 2 extra pages can be purchased for the final version of the accepted papers. Submissions are to be made to the submission web site https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2014 by selecting track "Workshop on Security Assurance in the Cloud". Only pdf files will be accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without consideration of their merits. Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register with the main conference and present the paper. Accepted papers at the workshop will be published in the conference proceedings and in the IEEE digital library. Extended version of selected accepted papers will be considered for publication in a journal special issue (TBC). IWSAC 2014 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS General Chair (SITIS General Chair) * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Chairs * Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Rasool Asal, British Telecommunications, UK/UAE Publicity Chair * Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Web Chair * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Committee * Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany * Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Michele Bezzi, SAP, France * Mauro Conti, University of Padua, Italy * Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA * William M. Fitzgerald, EMC Information Systems International, Ireland * Atsuhiro Goto, Institute of Information Security, Japan * Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany * Patrick Hung, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada * Meiko Jensen, Southern Denmark University, Denmark * Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany * Nicolas Larrieu, ENAC, France * Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain * Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK * George Spanoudakis, City University of London, UK This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be found at http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 17 11:21:38 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:21:38 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642694@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> It would make sense to start a process which could lead to a re-vival of the CS structures from WSIS (2002 - 2005 with a plenary, Bureau, Content & Themes and WGs)with a view to coordinate CS involvement in the preparation for IGF 2015, UNCSTD and WSIS 10+ in December 2015 in New York. The new "CS Group of CS Groups" is a good start. To get recognized by other stakeholders, in particular by governments, we need a working structure which is open, transparent, inclusive and allows a bottom PDP which leads to serious statements on concrete issues. If needed, smaller issue based CS working groups could be established. BTW, what role CONGO (the UN NGO Network) is playing today? They could be helpful in NY. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Mi 17.09.2014 17:08 An: Lea Kaspar Cc: Best Bits; Governance Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 Hi On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to > the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms. > > If this > doesn't happen at the December meeting, it could be set up online > independently. It might also be worth considering setting up a more > long-term mechanism to ensure continuity and knowledge-transfer, through an > advisory group of ex civil society MAG members or something similar. Good ideas if someone wants to put the energy into it..we've got ten years of CS @ MAG and no readily accessible institutional memory. > > Regardless of the new reps, do you know if there will be a way for the > broader community to shape the agenda of the December meeting? Normally this is a pretty standard format event, I don't recall that there was ever much bottom up input but others can correct me. Doubt it was said they'd not accept some. Either way, we could start. If for example there was a broad-based CS letter saying that part of the time should be set aside for a serious discussion of the NETmundial mandate and otherwise strengthening the IGF (WGIGF etc), and we could point the Chair, Secretariat, and MAG to this and say hey there's community desire to talk about this, one suspects they would not ignore the request. But absent anyone calling for something different, it could default to the somewhat sleepy "review of the meeting" format in which people bounce around on how many workshops and main sessions and speakers per etc. Bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: 17 September 2014 07:44 > To: Best Bits; Governance > Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 > December 2014 > > Hi > > The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG > meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December > 2014. This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing > civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for > follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF. If the meetings > turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking > about "what worked and what did not" in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the > wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it > will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015 > meeting in Brazil. Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced > in advance and will be able to attend. > > Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming > might want to start looking into options now. There should be some bits of > financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC's), > Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies. Others will have to find > their own way. > > I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil > society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic. > Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website. > > I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to > come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that > we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and > experience. Don't know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe > the civil society group would really benefit from something like this. > > Best > > Bill > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 12:15:48 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:15:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to >> the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. > > So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms. I spoke too fast, Subi disagrees and says that stakeholders should just meet informally. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 12:54:40 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:24:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Bill, First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both. A coordinated approach between different stakeholder groups especially CS is very welcome and essential. At the same time because to get anything done the MAG which is a multistakeholder advisory group needs support of all stakeholders a request has been made to do a formal orientation for all the new MAG members. And then a second round of introductions between old and new MAG members. We call that capacity building. I am quite surprised that having just endorsed the suggestions made by me you would choose to deliberately misinform. Also thanks for sharing the request I made to the secretariat for funding and support for CS and academia. I did look at hotel prices during the week and yes they are steep and without support from DESA and newly formed IGFSA it is difficult to ensure physical presence. And CS I have argued for long needs to be in the room in larger nos. Let’s work together to facilitate all those we can. The UN has a definite time stipulation for processing funding requests and all that we've been suggesting is that we must ensure support for new members even though the announcement of renewal might come after the deadline for seeking support. When I say they are not mutually exclusive that's exactly what I mean. In the interest of full disclosure, I will now follow this up with the emails that I have sent to the secretariat and the MAG advocating strongly for extension of all possible support to CS and academia. The meeting and consultations are open to all. We may have diffences in opinion and approaches but let's remain civil, balanced and fair towards each other. For any dialogue to occur we must be able to respect our differences and still be able to work for a common cause. The main focus session that I helped facilitate this year looks at strengthening the IGF and I believe NETmundial is an approach and a means not an end in itself. Bill I'd like to take this opportunity to put my appreciation on reccord for all the work you have done at the IGF as a MAG member. With continuity there is also value in allowing new voices to emerge and respecting both diversity of opinion and approaches. Sometimes when we put more responsibility on people less experienced and delegate, it creates new leaders and allows for a healthier ecosystem. I hope we will find generosity within, to give up what is to build, create and renew. I am positive with a coordinated approach CS can put in a vibrant and well rounded representation in this significant year for the IGF. Regards Subi Chaturvedi On 17 Sep 2014 21:45, "William Drake" wrote: > > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to >>> the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. >> >> >> So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms. > > > I spoke too fast, Subi disagrees and says that stakeholders should just meet informally. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 13:14:28 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:44:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Mail 1- Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014 Message-ID: Sharing the request made to the secretariat. For extending support to new and old CS members for the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meeting. The secretariat has just responded. Some support is available for developing country CS MAG members and will be extended to both new and old members to facilitate their physical presence. There should also be some support available through IGFSA as well for members of the community to attend the open Consultation and MAG meeting. We're in the early stages of preparation. Will keep you updated. And all the very best to all the CS applicants. Will be happy to assist in any way possible if you have any queries while making your applications. Regards Subi Chaturvedi > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Subi Chaturvedi" > Date: 17 Sep 2014 00:00 > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014 > To: "Markus Kummer" , "cmasango at unog.ch" < cmasango at unog.ch> > Cc: "MAG-public" Chengetai, thank you for the confirmation. I join colleagues in expressing our gratitude to ITU. We are well aware of the extreme gymnastics that the secretariat performs to collate applications and work through the process of reconstituting the MAG. This is to put on record the appreciation that we all have as MAG members, for the excellent work done throughout the preparatory process and during the IGF by Chengetai and his team. Also agree with Markus. The UN rules stipulate a mandatory time period within which the application for support must be made, if memory serves me right. The renewal process might not have culminated by then. But having been a new member in the recent past, I vouch for the immense value that the physical presence holds for new and first time MAG members. The orientation session and the ability to absorb and contribute to the conversation is a definite way to build capacity for newly inducted members. I can testify from personal experience, about the learning which has occurred from the support extended and wish that the others will also have the opportunity to learn and contribute towards the IGF ecosystem. There is no better way to work towards a truly meaningful #IGF2015 for new members than jumping into the deep end of the pool. I am hopeful that if there is a possibility to have the new members physically present for the meeting the option will be explored. And the support offered. Just checked the hotel prices in Geneva during the week. They are pretty steep. Without the support, it is near impossible for developing country participants and members from civil society and academia, to afford their in person, interventions. Both DESA's support and IGFSA will be valuable force multipliers. warmest Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi > > > > > > > > On 16 September 2014 23:36, Markus Kummer wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 14:50:30 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:50:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> Message-ID: <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com> Hi Subi On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > Dear Bill, > > First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both. > I did neither. You said, On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. > > Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. > > While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. > > We can still do both as we have done in the past. > > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past. This is the opposite of what I was suggested. I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul. But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 22:50:22 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:20:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com> References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, Yes you did. And you're at it again. First let me address the main session because you share information selectively. On the main a seven month process was followed. With you contributing. With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise. Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG. Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus. Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of misinformation and disinformation. We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF. I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same ecosystem. So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as resilient or persistent. Thank you for your understanding and patience. Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the MAG. We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my text or quote it in part, throughly out of context. Also one last thing before I close this conversation, not only would I like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception. I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a new members request. In person however when I sought you out, you did give me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to follow what was going on, I took it. Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful. --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Subi Chaturvedi" Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33 Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014 To: "Chengetai Masango" , "Janis Karklins" < karklinsj at gmail.com>, Cc: Thanks Chengetai for the clarification. And as always your support to old, not so old and new MAG members is invaluable. There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive. Some proposals received: This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at the best fit. 1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair and the secretariat. All the present MAG members who wish to join voluntarily can also participate. This was done in 2013 and was very well received. Scheduled during the lunch break on day 1. Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG members stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is done in the presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the first 15 minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting. Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda. I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised by colleagues like Angelic and others. 2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis. While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. We can still do both as we have done in the past. So that leads us to Option 3 3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer. We can do this on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise.. Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without mics we'd like it to be an icebreaker. Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make a request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with all present. Regards Subi Chaturvedi Regards Subi Chaturvedi On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" wrote: > > Hi Subi > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > >> Dear Bill, >> >> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both. > > I did neither. You said, > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. >> >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. >> >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. >> >> We can still do both as we have done in the past. >> >> > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past. This is the opposite of what I was suggested. > > I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul. But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not. > > Cheers > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 04:29:31 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:29:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com> Message-ID: Subi As I’m not interested in participating in a public spectacle with you, I’m not going to respond in kind to your inflammatory verbiage and strategems. So just the facts and then let’s move on. Re: the December MAG meeting, I was informing people that I’d suggested to MAG that there be a time slot for stakeholder group meetings. You replied counter-proposing that SGs meet informally, so I merely noted that. Quoting your reply to my suggestion is not paraphrasing or taking things out of context, and the rest of the message you forwarded doesn’t change what you said in response to my suggestion. Re: the main session that was supposed to have discussed ways to strengthen the IGF in keeping with the NETmundial statement, there are people on these lists who know how you handled it, and anyone else who is interested can have a look at the relevant threads at http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org and http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ Re: the additional narrative you apparently are trying to construct on workshops, the MAG's rankings are the product of a collective assessment and many proposals from many sources do not make the cut. If that has included ones you were involved in or otherwise favored and hence the ranking system should be different, convince your colleagues on the MAG to change it. Bye Bill On Sep 18, 2014, at 4:50 AM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Yes you did. And you're at it again. > > First let me address the main session because you share information selectively. > > On the main a seven month process was followed. With you contributing. With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise. Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG. Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus. > > Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of misinformation and disinformation. > > We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF. > > I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same ecosystem. So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as resilient or persistent. > > Thank you for your understanding and patience. > > Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the MAG. > > We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my text or quote it in part, throughly out of context. > > Also one last thing before I close this conversation, not only would I like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception. > > I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a new members request. In person however when I sought you out, you did give me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to follow what was going on, I took it. > > Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful. > > --------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Subi Chaturvedi" > Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33 > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014 > To: "Chengetai Masango" , "Janis Karklins" , > Cc: > Thanks Chengetai for the clarification. And as always your support to old, not so old and new MAG members is invaluable. > > There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive. Some proposals received: > > This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at the best fit. > > 1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair and the secretariat. All the present MAG members who wish to join voluntarily can also participate. > This was done in 2013 and was very well received. Scheduled during the lunch break on day 1. > > Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG members stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is done in the presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the first 15 minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting. > > Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda. > > I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised by colleagues like Angelic and others. > > 2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis. > > While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. > > Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. > > While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. > > We can still do both as we have done in the past. > > So that leads us to Option 3 > > 3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer. We can do this on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise.. > > Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without mics we'd like it to be an icebreaker. > > Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make a request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with all present. > > Regards > > Subi Chaturvedi > > > Regards > > Subi Chaturvedi > > > On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" wrote: > > > > Hi Subi > > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > > > >> Dear Bill, > >> > >> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both. > > > > I did neither. You said, > > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > > > >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. > >> > >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. > >> > >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. > >> > >> We can still do both as we have done in the past. > >> > >> > > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past. This is the opposite of what I was suggested. > > > > I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul. But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not. > > > > Cheers > > > > Bill > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 06:29:08 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:59:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com> Message-ID: My thoughts exactly Bill. And for the record I did submit a proposal, in 2013 when it was still ok for the MAG to do so. It not only made the cut but was ranked fairly high. But this isn't about me. So do not trivialise the issue or make it personal. You are right a ratings improvements and evaluation mechanism has been initiated and it is a result of cumulative efforts. The transcripts of the consultation are online my interventions too. As is your response to all such suggestions and emphasis on Quality and well written workshop proposals. You're right it is a constant process of self improvement and evolution that we go through each year regarding formats and processes. Will keep working on it. Also I wish you well. Hope you will continue your engagement with the MAG and the process. Your inputs as always are welcome. Regards Subi Chaturvedi On 18 Sep 2014 13:59, "William Drake" wrote: > > Subi > > As I’m not interested in participating in a public spectacle with you, I’m not going to respond in kind to your inflammatory verbiage and strategems. So just the facts and then let’s move on. > > Re: the December MAG meeting, I was informing people that I’d suggested to MAG that there be a time slot for stakeholder group meetings. You replied counter-proposing that SGs meet informally, so I merely noted that. Quoting your reply to my suggestion is not paraphrasing or taking things out of context, and the rest of the message you forwarded doesn’t change what you said in response to my suggestion. > > Re: the main session that was supposed to have discussed ways to strengthen the IGF in keeping with the NETmundial statement, there are people on these lists who know how you handled it, and anyone else who is interested can have a look at the relevant threads at > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org and > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/ > > Re: the additional narrative you apparently are trying to construct on workshops, the MAG's rankings are the product of a collective assessment and many proposals from many sources do not make the cut. If that has included ones you were involved in or otherwise favored and hence the ranking system should be different, convince your colleagues on the MAG to change it. > > Bye > > Bill > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 4:50 AM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Yes you did. And you're at it again. >> >> First let me address the main session because you share information selectively. >> >> On the main a seven month process was followed. With you contributing. With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise. Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG. Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus. >> >> Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of misinformation and disinformation. >> >> We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF. >> >> I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same ecosystem. So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as resilient or persistent. >> >> Thank you for your understanding and patience. >> >> Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the MAG. >> >> We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my text or quote it in part, throughly out of context. >> >> Also one last thing before I close this conversation, not only would I like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception. >> >> I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a new members request. In person however when I sought you out, you did give me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to follow what was going on, I took it. >> >> Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful. >> >> --------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Subi Chaturvedi" >> Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33 >> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014 >> To: "Chengetai Masango" , "Janis Karklins" < karklinsj at gmail.com>, >> Cc: >> Thanks Chengetai for the clarification. And as always your support to old, not so old and new MAG members is invaluable. >> >> There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive. Some proposals received: >> >> This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at the best fit. >> >> 1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair and the secretariat. All the present MAG members who wish to join voluntarily can also participate. >> This was done in 2013 and was very well received. Scheduled during the lunch break on day 1. >> >> Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG members stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is done in the presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the first 15 minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting. >> >> Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda. >> >> I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised by colleagues like Angelic and others. >> >> 2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis. >> >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. >> >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. >> >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. >> >> We can still do both as we have done in the past. >> >> So that leads us to Option 3 >> >> 3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer. We can do this on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise.. >> >> Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without mics we'd like it to be an icebreaker. >> >> Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make a request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with all present. >> >> Regards >> >> Subi Chaturvedi >> >> Regards >> >> Subi Chaturvedi >> >> On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" wrote: >> > >> > Hi Subi >> > >> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Bill, >> >> >> >> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both. >> > >> > I did neither. You said, >> > >> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi wrote: >> > >> >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG. >> >> >> >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul. >> >> >> >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past, a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together. >> >> >> >> We can still do both as we have done in the past. >> >> >> >> >> > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past. This is the opposite of what I was suggested. >> > >> > I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul. But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not. >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Bill > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Sep 18 08:17:17 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:17:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on Message-ID: Results Available for 17 September 2014 Auction. http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17sep14-en Four applicants for BUY participated in the Auction. Amazon EU S.à r.l. prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$4,588,888.* Six applicants for TECH participated in the Auction. Dot Tech LLC prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$6,760,000*. Five applicants for VIP participated in the Auction. Top Level Domain Holdings prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$3,000,888*. Remember. ICANN is non-profit and no tax. LOL. . Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Thu Sep 18 08:40:12 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:40:12 +0700 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> Thanks, Louis. How long will it still be possible to LOL? And how transparent is it where these dollars go? I remember there were some time not conclusive discussions about staff perks (some working on TLD system development), and some discussion about staff salaries or "benefits" - ICANN is a non-profit. So am I. What I have done from 1994 to more recently to connect the country to the Internet, to get the Cambodian script into Unicode, to help to organize the creation of localized Khmer Open Source software (now the official software for the Ministry of Education and everything under it in Teachers Training Colleges, Provincial Offices of Education, and schools that have computer), all that was also non-profit. But at the end, ICANN seems to have a lot of money. Norbert Klein Cambodia On 9/18/2014 7:17 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Results Available for 17 September 2014 Auction. > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17sep14-en > > Four applicants for BUY participated in the Auction. Amazon EU S.à > r.l. prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$4,588,888. > * > Six applicants for TECH participated in the Auction. Dot Tech LLC > prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$6,760,000*. > > Five applicants for VIP participated in the Auction. Top Level Domain > Holdings prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$3,000,888*. > > Remember. ICANN is non-profit and no tax. LOL. > . > Louis > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 18 09:03:05 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:33:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> Message-ID: <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> On Thursday 18 September 2014 06:10 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Thanks, Louis. > > How long will it still be possible to LOL? As long as a certain section of IG civil society remains so ingratiated with ICANN that they will never speak up anything that can lead to any real structural change in the ICANN, and make it really responsible to the global public. The quid pro quo of course being that ICANN spends a part of the money currying favour with this section of the civil society. I know this kind of thing is normally not said in the polite society of global IG, but what the heck... The loot cannot go on. And if those who are supposed to be the watch dogs turn pets, it must be called out in the larger public interest... parminder > > And how transparent is it where these dollars go? > > I remember there were some time not conclusive discussions about staff > perks (some working on TLD system development), and some discussion > about staff salaries or "benefits" - ICANN is a non-profit. > > So am I. > > What I have done from 1994 to more recently to connect the country to > the Internet, to get the Cambodian script into Unicode, to help to > organize the creation of localized Khmer Open Source software (now the > official software for the Ministry of Education and everything under > it in Teachers Training Colleges, Provincial Offices of Education, and > schools that have computer), all that was also non-profit. > > But at the end, ICANN seems to have a lot of money. > > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > > > On 9/18/2014 7:17 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Results Available for 17 September 2014 Auction. >> >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17sep14-en >> >> >> Four applicants for BUY participated in the Auction. Amazon EU S.à >> r.l. prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$4,588,888. >> * >> Six applicants for TECH participated in the Auction. Dot Tech LLC >> prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$6,760,000*. >> >> Five applicants for VIP participated in the Auction. Top Level Domain >> Holdings prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of >> *$3,000,888*. >> >> Remember. ICANN is non-profit and no tax. LOL. >> . >> Louis >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 09:20:22 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:20:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Time for some reality based thinking here. ICANN has a lot of money, sure, however, they are spending it on IG conferences (NetMundial, IGF, and others that you folks are happy to participate in) at a prodigious rate. MOST of the money they have on hand is budgeted fro legal fees in case/when they get sued, so it is a 'war-chest" they can't touch. They have spent so much so fast that they are actually cutting the budget for 2015, as new gTLD revenues are significantly lower than what was anticipated. The latest in this saga is that the Gala, a staple of ICANN meetings has been cut from the Agenda. So not wallowing in cash, actually fairly strapped for it. These auctions reveneues don't go into the regular budget IIRC, but are put aside in the new gTLD kitty, in other words, they aren't really free to spend it as and when they wish. So it's not all fancy lunches/dinners/biz class travel for ICANN staff. In fact, on the way home from Durban I saw several ICANN VPs in Economy. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:03 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 18 September 2014 06:10 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >> Thanks, Louis. >> >> How long will it still be possible to LOL? >> > > As long as a certain section of IG civil society remains so ingratiated > with ICANN that they will never speak up anything that can lead to any real > structural change in the ICANN, and make it really responsible to the > global public. The quid pro quo of course being that ICANN spends a part of > the money currying favour with this section of the civil society. > > I know this kind of thing is normally not said in the polite society of > global IG, but what the heck... The loot cannot go on. And if those who are > supposed to be the watch dogs turn pets, it must be called out in the > larger public interest... > > parminder > > > >> And how transparent is it where these dollars go? >> >> I remember there were some time not conclusive discussions about staff >> perks (some working on TLD system development), and some discussion about >> staff salaries or "benefits" - ICANN is a non-profit. >> >> So am I. >> >> What I have done from 1994 to more recently to connect the country to the >> Internet, to get the Cambodian script into Unicode, to help to organize the >> creation of localized Khmer Open Source software (now the official software >> for the Ministry of Education and everything under it in Teachers Training >> Colleges, Provincial Offices of Education, and schools that have computer), >> all that was also non-profit. >> >> But at the end, ICANN seems to have a lot of money. >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> On 9/18/2014 7:17 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >>> Results Available for 17 September 2014 Auction. >>> >>> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/ >>> announcement-2-17sep14-en >>> >>> Four applicants for BUY participated in the Auction. Amazon EU S.à r.l. >>> prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$4,588,888. >>> * >>> Six applicants for TECH participated in the Auction. Dot Tech LLC >>> prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$6,760,000*. >>> >>> Five applicants for VIP participated in the Auction. Top Level Domain >>> Holdings prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$3,000,888*. >>> >>> Remember. ICANN is non-profit and no tax. LOL. >>> . >>> Louis >>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 18 09:32:04 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:02:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> On Thursday 18 September 2014 06:50 PM, McTim wrote: > Time for some reality based thinking here. > > ICANN has a lot of money, sure, however, they are spending it on IG > conferences (NetMundial, IGF, and others that you folks are happy to > participate in) at a prodigious rate. Every meeting they attend, they more than extract their pound of flesh... Net Mundial being a good example. They even got civil society leads appointed for civil society apart . > > MOST of the money they have on hand is budgeted fro legal fees in > case/when they get sued, so it is a 'war-chest" they can't touch. Let them come out of the US, they would need a fraction of that kind of expenditure. > > They have spent so much so fast that they are actually cutting the > budget for 2015, as new gTLD revenues are significantly lower than > what was anticipated. > > The latest in this saga is that the Gala, a staple of ICANN meetings > has been cut from the Agenda. > > So not wallowing in cash, actually fairly strapped for it. These > auctions reveneues don't go into the regular budget IIRC, but are put > aside in the new gTLD kitty, in other words, they aren't really free > to spend it as and when they wish. Interesting! Then whose wishes they are able to spend it for? BTW, I really will like to know who gave the ICANN mandate to get into Net Mundial and WEF kind of things, which is basically trying to forge a new global IG order far beyond the domain name space? But ICANN is hardly answerable to me. > > So it's not all fancy lunches/dinners/biz class travel for ICANN > staff. In fact, on the way home from Durban I saw several ICANN VPs > in Economy. The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's geopolitical interests Were it not for that, it would have been 'disciplined' - including its earning and expenditure - long long ago.. parminder > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:03 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Thursday 18 September 2014 06:10 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > Thanks, Louis. > > How long will it still be possible to LOL? > > > As long as a certain section of IG civil society remains so > ingratiated with ICANN that they will never speak up anything that > can lead to any real structural change in the ICANN, and make it > really responsible to the global public. The quid pro quo of > course being that ICANN spends a part of the money currying favour > with this section of the civil society. > > I know this kind of thing is normally not said in the polite > society of global IG, but what the heck... The loot cannot go on. > And if those who are supposed to be the watch dogs turn pets, it > must be called out in the larger public interest... > > parminder > > > > And how transparent is it where these dollars go? > > I remember there were some time not conclusive discussions > about staff perks (some working on TLD system development), > and some discussion about staff salaries or "benefits" - ICANN > is a non-profit. > > So am I. > > What I have done from 1994 to more recently to connect the > country to the Internet, to get the Cambodian script into > Unicode, to help to organize the creation of localized Khmer > Open Source software (now the official software for the > Ministry of Education and everything under it in Teachers > Training Colleges, Provincial Offices of Education, and > schools that have computer), all that was also non-profit. > > But at the end, ICANN seems to have a lot of money. > > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > > > On 9/18/2014 7:17 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Results Available for 17 September 2014 Auction. > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17sep14-en > > > Four applicants for BUY participated in the Auction. > Amazon EU S.à r.l. prevailed in the Auction with the > winning price of *$4,588,888. > * > Six applicants for TECH participated in the Auction. Dot > Tech LLC prevailed in the Auction with the winning price > of *$6,760,000*. > > Five applicants for VIP participated in the Auction. Top > Level Domain Holdings prevailed in the Auction with the > winning price of *$3,000,888*. > > Remember. ICANN is non-profit and no tax. LOL. > . > Louis > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 18 09:38:31 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:38:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140918133831.GA29448@hserus.net> parminder [18/09/14 19:02 +0530]: >Let them come out of the US, they would need a fraction of that kind >of expenditure. Hmm, I didn't know Singapore and Istanbul were in the USA. >Interesting! Then whose wishes they are able to spend it for? BTW, I >really will like to know who gave the ICANN mandate to get into Net >Mundial and WEF kind of things, which is basically trying to forge a Did someone give you a mandate, or give any other civil society individual or organization a mandate, to participate in Netmundial? >new global IG order far beyond the domain name space? But ICANN is >hardly answerable to me. I fear that I detect the odor of sour grapes here, more than anything else. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 09:48:39 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:48:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder wrote: The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can be done at > maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. Mandate or IANA function? If the latter, you are correct. > ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's geopolitical > interests ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on meetings 3x per year in far flung locations around the world. Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around the world as the policy making community, they could do their job using far fewer resources. This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature for CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in person. -- McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 18 10:03:57 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:33:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> On Thursday 18 September 2014 07:18 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can > be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. > > > > Mandate or IANA function? If the latter, you are correct. > > ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's > geopolitical interests > > > ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on > meetings 3x per year in far flung locations around the world. > > Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people > around the world as the policy making community, Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global public is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that promotes the interests of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, which is a matter of life and death to so many poor people, is likely to auction .book to Amazon as a closed generic, so that Amazon holds the rights to what can be called as a digital book, and so many other monstrosities... > they could do their job using far fewer resources. > > This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature > for CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to > participate in person. No-strings!! Thats the joke here... parminder > > -- > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 10:17:11 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:17:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:03 AM, parminder wrote: Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around the world as the policy making community, > > Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global public > is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that promotes the interests > of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, which is a matter of life and > death to so many poor people > If only facts didn't get in the way of your arguments! the fact is that neither ICANN as an entity nor as a policy community "decided" to give .health to these folks: http://www.dothealthgtld.com/aboutus.html they applied for it, and received it according to the Applicant Guidebook (which was developed by the policy community, which you refuse to be a part of). Another fact is there is ZERO big pharma support to .health, but really, carry on with your counter-factual-ism, you will always find takers here it seems! > , is likely to auction .book to Amazon as a closed generic, so that Amazon > holds the rights to what can be called as a digital book, and so many other > monstrosities... > > they could do their job using far fewer resources. > > This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature for > CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate > in person. > > > > No-strings!! Thats the joke here... > > parminder > > > -- > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 18 11:00:26 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:30:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <541AF38A.4010707@itforchange.net> On Thursday 18 September 2014 07:47 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:03 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people > around the world as the policy making community, > > > Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global > public is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that > promotes the interests of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, > which is a matter of life and death to so many poor people > > > > If only facts didn't get in the way of your arguments! > > the fact is that neither ICANN as an entity nor as a policy community > "decided" to give .health to these folks: > > http://www.dothealthgtld.com/aboutus.html > > they applied for it, and received it according to the Applicant > Guidebook (which was developed by the policy community, which you > refuse to be a part of). > > Another fact is there is ZERO big pharma support to .health, but > really, carry on with your counter-factual-ism, you will always find > takers here it seems! See http://infojustice.org/archives/31846 about the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies- a major backer of .health and its relationship with big pharma. And you of course know that GAC as well as WHO opposed delegation of dot health. In this case even the independent Expert opposed it. Also ALAC opposed it. As to what relationship The Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies has with the Intellectual Property establishment of the US, and how safe drug trade is very often just a code word for US Intellectual Property law complaint global drug trade , see http://safeonlinerx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ASOP-Response-to-IPEC.pdf , especially the passage We urge IPEC to maintain consistent dialogue with CSIP and other Internet commerce companies to: Reiterate the Administration's commitment to combating illegal online drug sellers and encouraging voluntary action from private sector stakeholders consistent with IPEC's 2010 Annual Report (2010 U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement pg. 28) (quote ends) There are endless such reports and analyses on the Internet. Dot health is going to be policed as per US drugs law and this clearly means that generic drug traders should avoid this gltd, which such a outrage, clearly US calls the shots with eh global DNS system and this is not at all acceptable. A paper analysing the issue is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3961808/ parminder > > > > > > > > , is likely to auction .book to Amazon as a closed generic, so > that Amazon holds the rights to what can be called as a digital > book, and so many other monstrosities... > >> they could do their job using far fewer resources. >> >> This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful >> feature for CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel >> funding to participate in person. > > > No-strings!! Thats the joke here... > > parminder >> >> -- >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. >> A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 18 14:33:59 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:33:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541B2597.4090604@acm.org> Hi, Many of us within ICANN have been arguing for a while that this money needs to be earmarked for developing economies, and this this should be a center piece of ICANN's so-called globalization efforts. For example the deployment for local and/or IDN gTLDS in a new remedial round and/or helping to bolster the infrastructure for domain name registry service providers in developing economies so that applying for domain names is something that fits local and regional needs. Any plans are still very much in the hand waving stage. But we have decided now was time to get more specific about it. There is a WG working on it and I am sure they would be happy to see more participants with a way to do something like this. The group is working on trying to craft advice on what a next round should fix about this round and what the best way of supporting users at large is. Lots of nitty gritty work to be done there. And more voices are always helpful when trying to achieve a near impossible goal. The Board has not yet agreed to kick of the auction funds discussion saying they did not know whether there would be an significant funds. The NCSG (Non Commercial Stakeholder Group) has been pestering the Board about this for a while and it is a topic almost every time we talk to them. Well, I never thought there was a doubt, but now they should be convinced as well. So time to try again. Of course the group mentioned above, mostly among the At Large participants and among some Government Advisory Committee members, is not the only group with an idea on how to spend this money. Many will have a suggestion on how it should be spent. avri On 18-Sep-14 08:17, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Results Available for 17 September 2014 Auction. > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17sep14-en > > Four applicants for BUY participated in the Auction. Amazon EU S.à r.l. > prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of > *$4,588,888.* > Six applicants for TECH participated in the Auction. Dot Tech LLC prevailed > in the Auction with the winning price of *$6,760,000*. > > Five applicants for VIP participated in the Auction. Top Level Domain > Holdings prevailed in the Auction with the winning price of *$3,000,888*. > > Remember. ICANN is non-profit and no tax. LOL. > . > Louis > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Sep 18 14:37:02 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:37:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> Message-ID: <21531.9806.512100.725966@world.std.com> Non-profit only means that profits, money left over after costs are accounted for, aren't distributed to shareholders et al as dividends etc. but are retained for the corporation's activities. There is a notion of excess retentions in the tax laws. It doesn't mean that goods or services are sold at cost or whatever seems to be implied here. Tax-free status is of course more complicated. Any company can be tax-free, just don't make a profit. One of the easier goals in the corporate landscape. I realize "tax-exempt" was intended. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Sep 18 14:51:26 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:51:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <20140918133831.GA29448@hserus.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <20140918133831.GA29448@hserus.net> Message-ID: <21531.10670.553889.949857@world.std.com> The implication is that ICANN would be less exposed to legal costs, in particular judgements, arising from the new TLD program if they were incorporated outside of the United States. I'm not sure there's sound legal basis for this claim though I suppose a jurisdictional structure could be concocted which claims to achieve that goal. It's difficult to argue with a vague hypothetical. Of course this all assumes that the plaintiffs should have no right to redress and are always wrong, so should just be thwarted by jurisdictional means. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Sep 18 15:21:39 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:21:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21531.12483.39369.373365@world.std.com> On September 18, 2014 at 19:33 parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) wrote: > Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global > public is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that promotes the > interests of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, which is a matter > of life and death to so many poor people, is likely to auction .book to > Amazon as a closed generic, so that Amazon holds the rights to what can > be called as a digital book, and so many other monstrosities... There seems to be this idea floating around that new TLDs have some higher purpose than just a place to register SLDs. The idea has come up from time to time in a highly inconsistent manner which feeds the confusion. So it's understandable. Much like people imagine there's someone in charge of internet content in general. Similar for .BOOK. With some notable exceptions here and there (e.g., GAC non-binding input) ICANN's process for new TLDs has been registry/registrar driven and only rarely based on some strict notion of what should be done with the TLD beyond perhaps keep to the implied theme at least until registrations slow down. Where there is some implied theme. One can look through the nTLD applications for hints. My favorite example: .CAMERA would seem to imply photography equipment. Yet it also means "room" in Spanish. So would selling SLDs to both the photography industry and hotels in Spanish speaking countries violate an assumption as implied above? My point being: What is any of this grousing based on? Beyond some imagining of how one might otherwise base their own nTLD program if they were in charge? Fantasy football. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 15:40:04 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:40:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AF38A.4010707@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> <541AF38A.4010707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 18 September 2014 07:47 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:03 AM, parminder wrote: > > Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around the world as the policy making community, >> >> >> Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global public is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that promotes the interests of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, which is a matter of life and death to so many poor people > > > > If only facts didn't get in the way of your arguments! > > the fact is that neither ICANN as an entity nor as a policy community "decided" to give .health to these folks: > > http://www.dothealthgtld.com/aboutus.html > > they applied for it, and received it according to the Applicant Guidebook (which was developed by the policy community, which you refuse to be a part of). > > Another fact is there is ZERO big pharma support to .health, but really, carry on with your counter-factual-ism, you will always find takers here it seems! > > > > See http://infojustice.org/archives/31846 about the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies- a major backer of .health and its relationship with big pharma. This was written by PharmacyChecker whose main goal seems to be to promote "Canadian" pharmacies as safe (despite the fact that it is against the law for them to ship across international boundaries). If CSIP was a backer of .health, don't you think they would list them here? http://www.dothealthgtld.com/industry_support.html > > > And you of course know that GAC as well as WHO opposed delegation of dot health. In this case even the independent Expert opposed it. Also ALAC opposed it. Well in the link you sent it says: "However, in a subsequent decision, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), an entity reviewing disputes filed by the IO, denied all limited public interest objections filed against current active .health applicants (ie, Donuts Inc, Affilias, DotHealth LLC) " The GAC didn't object to .health, but included a number of Public Interest commitments that highly regulated industry strings must abide by. > > As to what relationship The Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies has with the Intellectual Property establishment of the US, and how safe drug trade is very often just a code word for US Intellectual Property law complaint global drug trade It is often a code word for patient safety which CS must be concerned about as well. > > There are endless such reports and analyses on the Internet. Dot health is going to be policed as per US drugs law and this clearly means that generic drug traders should avoid this gltd, which such a outrage, Why is it an outrage? First of all, since you are so misinformed on the issue, the fact is that generic drugs avalaible in the US are far cheaper than the one available from illegal overseas paharmacies (illegal in the sense that it is against the law for them to ship across int'l boundaries). Here is a case in point. Today I bought 90 days supply of Rx medication for Spouse. Cost 10 USD, I didn't even bother to submit to insurance provider at that cost. Cost from so-called Canadian pharmacies (looking at http://www.pharmacychecker.com/drug-price-comparisons.asp ) 36-51 USD. Obviously you 've been sold a line that bigpharma keeps drug prices high in the US artificially by keeping out cheap generic sellers. This is patently false as my purchase today shows. > clearly US calls the shots with eh global DNS system and this is not at all acceptable. Again untrue. Anyone wanting to sell generic medications can do so in a dotcom or .net or .guru for that matter. > > , is likely to auction .book to Amazon as a closed generic, so that Amazon holds the rights to what can be called as a digital book, and so many other monstrosities... Again, incorrect. if amazon wins .book, it only means they get to set the policies about registration under .book, it doesn't have anything to do with the larger issue of what is an e-book. > > > they could do their job using far fewer resources. > > This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature for CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in person. > > > > No-strings!! Thats the joke here.. I went to Durban on ICANN's nickel, there were no strings attached. Of course if you have first hand experience that is different, do share. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Thu Sep 18 15:46:53 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:46:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541AF38A.4010707@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> <541AF38A.4010707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21531.13997.772725.186731@world.std.com> Seriously? You're going to try to combat fraudulent et al drug purveyors by control of .HEALTH? By what standard? Perhaps I will overstate but homeopathy, for example, is regarded with great respect in France. In the US it is generally considered a blatantly fraudulent "pharmaceutical" practice and only squeaks by the laws by the most generous interpretation of govt non-interference so long as benefit claims (on packaging etc) are sufficiently vague. Personally I tend towards the US view on homeopathy and would happily vote that they are banned in any such .HEALTH regulatory regime, but whatever, I'm suspect of any such effort. And what about health claims made for yoga or aromatherapy or crystals? Each and every one should be examined by some standard enforced and implemented by registrars? For each and every country? Only the lowest common denominator should be acceptable, health claims with which every possibly affected country is comfortable? Should this be extended to .COM etc? Or is there some sort of powerful mojo to a .HEALTH TLD which demands that it, and it alone, be subject to such regulation? My opinion is leave the regulation to the national regulatory agencies. There's a long history of such regulaton. Trying to regulate health claims via a TLD has to be one of the sillier ideas which has infected these circles. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 16:38:49 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:38:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for Civil Society representation on the IGF's MAG Message-ID: Dear all, Following our notice and call for comments posted here on Sept 12 (below for your reference), here is the formal call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition, who together comprise the Civil Society Coordination Group. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above individual coalitions. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30, 2014. If you wish to nominate via IGC, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to kichango at gmail.com (by reply to this email or in a new email with 'MAG nomination' in the subject line.) Please include in your nomination the nominee's name, country of residence, country of nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria. CRITERIA * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this process. Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16. More about the IGF and the MAG can be obtained from www.intgovforum.org Best regards, Mawaki IGC Co-coordinator On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards > Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) nominations > and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group > (CSCG) might play. > > The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil > society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the > Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with no > active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the first > time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements between our > groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. To remedy > this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a more > comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates. > > In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday > (September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your > comments are sought on the following. > > > > TIMETABLE > > > > The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition member > will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated with others > at a later stage > > Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection criteria > > > > Tues, September 30 - close of nominations > > > > October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from various > coalitions > > > > October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names to lists > > > > October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat. > > > > > > Your comments on this are welcome. > > PROCEDURES > > The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, > but your input is welcome. > > > > The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and > conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside > bodies. > > > > The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for civil > society appointments is received. > > > > 1. CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by > either one > of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS involvement. > When > such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has been requested and, > in > a case where CS already has representation, consult with existing > representatives in clarifying the involvement required. > > 2. CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS > representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to > be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination > to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. > (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members > choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision > to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of > chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary > responsibility of each constituency. > > 3. Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as part > of any process must announce that intention before a call for candidates is > announced, and may nominate another representative of their coalition to > take their place on the Nomcom. > > 4. CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any > appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates. > > 5. CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process. > > 6. A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each > nomination process. > > 7. Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition will > issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to CSCG at > the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to shortlist > their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to forward all > names received > > 8. Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked > to address selection criteria in their nominations. > > 9. The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non > voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who > choose not to participate in a particular process. > > 10. The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate > procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances suggest > otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a shortlisting > process, which will assist in identifying most favoured candidates and > which candidates should be examined more closely. Following from > shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication of which > candidates should be selected, Nomcom members will arrive at the final > candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary conference > linkups to determine the final slates. > > 11. All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests of > civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in determining > appropriate representatives > > 12. All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance in > determining their final selections, while considering also the need for > the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society to be > represented. While realising that complete balance will not be able to > be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members are requested to > take into account any such deficits in balances in previous CSCG decisions > in making selections, with an objective of achieving balance over a period > of time which may not be achievable in every particular case. > > 13. The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the > process is completed. > > > > > > SELECTION CRITERIA > > The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your comments > (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate of > candidates) > > > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups > working on internet governance issues > > 2. Consultative style > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF > > 4. Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups > > > > > > > > A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for candidates > will be issued on Thursday, September 18. > > > > Ian Peter > > (Independent Chair, CSCG) > > > > CSCG members are: > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia > Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet > Governance Programmes > > Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, > NCSG Executive Committee > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Thu Sep 18 22:30:24 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:30:24 +0700 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> Thanks - can you please elaborate on "no-strings attached travel funding to participate in person" - and I would welcome to see whether or not this is a general experience, for example for GNSO council members, chairs of official ICANN working groups, and others of the "many thousands of people around the world as the policy making community." Norbert Klein Cambodia On 9/18/2014 8:48 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can > be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. > > > > Mandate or IANA function? If the latter, you are correct. > > ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's > geopolitical interests > > > ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on > meetings 3x per year in far flung locations around the world. > > Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people > around the world as the policy making community, they could do their > job using far fewer resources. > > This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature > for CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to > participate in person. > > -- > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Sep 19 00:40:24 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:40:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Thanks - can you please elaborate on "no-strings attached travel funding > to participate in person" - and I would welcome to see whether or not this > is a general experience, for example for GNSO council members, chairs of > official ICANN working groups, and others of the "many thousands of people > around the world as the policy making community." > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > - - - Perhaps it's an opportunity to re-re-publish a note on travel financing for people from less developed countries (LDC). http://www.open-root.eu/about-open-root/news/financing-ldcs-in-the-wsis-process LDC people are very few in IGF related meetings. OTOH the dominant participants are the ICANN nomenklatura. If they traveled on low fare flights, stayed in low cost hotels, and dined in local places, 3 to 4 times more LDC people could be funded to attend the meeting. ICANN thrives on domain names fees. That's our money. A percentage should be earmarked for LDC people traveling to UN meetings. But ICANN is so unaccountable. Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 09:03:59 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:03:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> Message-ID: I didn't have to sign anything that said anything about what I could or couldn't say at the meeting. I went as part of NCSG. You can Google "ICANN travel policy" for details. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Thanks - can you please elaborate on "no-strings attached travel funding to > participate in person" - and I would welcome to see whether or not this is a > general experience, for example for GNSO council members, chairs of official > ICANN working groups, and others of the "many thousands of people around the > world as the policy making community." > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > > > On 9/18/2014 8:48 PM, McTim wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder > > wrote: >> >> >> The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can >> be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. >> >> >> >> Mandate or IANA function? If the latter, you are correct. >> >> ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's >> geopolitical interests >> >> ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on meetings 3x >> per year in far flung locations around the world. >> >> Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around >> the world as the policy making community, they could do their job using far >> fewer resources. >> >> This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature for CS >> folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in >> person. >> >> -- >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 12:38:49 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:38:49 +0700 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=8BRussia_eyes_counter_to_Washington?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_internet_kill-switch_=E2=80=93_report_=E2=80=94_RT_N?= =?UTF-8?Q?ews?= Message-ID: <020a01cfd428$430cdad0$c9269070$@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:05 PM Subject: ​Russia eyes counter to Washington’s internet kill-switch – report — RT News http://rt.com/news/188960-internet-blackout-russia-counter/ Russia eyes counter to Washington’s internet kill-switch – report RIA Novosti / Alexandr Kryazhev RIA Novosti / Alexandr Kryazhev Facing a possible cut-off from the internet by the US, Russian security officials and IT giants are discussing the possibility to make the Russian sector of the net independent, according to insiders. The issue would be discussed at several closed-door events in the days to come, including a national Security Council session on Monday next week, reports Vedomosti newspaper citing a number of unnamed security and industry sources. The meeting of security officials, to be chaired by President Vladimir Putin, will to discuss the results of a July Communications Ministry exercise to test how robust the Russian internet infrastructure would be if it were subject to a massive cyber-attack. The answer to that is reportedly “Not robust enough.” Russia wants to, if not prevent, then at least control the potential damage of a confrontation in cyberspace. Particularly, it wants the ‘runet’ - the Russian part of the internet - to be able to operate independently from the rest of the world in case of emergency, the newspaper cites a security source as saying. The goal is not to have ‘an internet of its own’, like North Korea’s. It’s also not about being able to shut down electronic communications in Russia in the face of massive riots, as Turkey and Egypt recently did, although such an option would be welcomed, the report says. Rather it is to ensure that if the US government uses its emergency powers to cut Russian IP addresses from service, then backup servers would be ready to step in. Back in 2012, US President Barack Obama signed an executive order allowing him to take control of all communications on American soil, including those crucial for the normal operation of the internet. The US also reportedly has a history of cutting a country off the internet. According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the agency unintentionally caused the November 2012 internet blackout in Syria as it was trying to install spyware on one of the core routers. The possible measures, including a possible government take-over of the functions of the .ru and .рф domain name registrar, come amid Russia’s frustration with lack of progress in making ICANN, the chief internet protocol and domain name system body, less dependent on the United States. Moscow has been for years campaigning for giving ICANN’s job to an organization working under the United Nations. The internet independence plans however may be hurdled by technical and administrative difficulties, told Vedomosti the Russian internet ombudsman, Dmitry Marinchev. Unlike China, which developed its segment of the internet with the goal of keeping tight control over it in mind, Russia allowed the ‘runet’ to organically grow from foreign parts of the infrastructure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From analia.aspis at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 12:52:37 2014 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:52:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=8BRussia_eyes_counter_to_Washin?= =?UTF-8?Q?gton=E2=80=99s_internet_kill-switch_=E2=80=93_report_=E2=80=94_?= =?UTF-8?Q?RT_News?= In-Reply-To: <020a01cfd428$430cdad0$c9269070$@gmail.com> References: <020a01cfd428$430cdad0$c9269070$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, Do you have an access link for the report? Kind regards, Analía On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2014 8:05 PM > *Subject:* ​Russia eyes counter to Washington’s internet kill-switch – > report — RT News > > http://rt.com/news/188960-internet-blackout-russia-counter/ > Russia eyes counter to Washington’s internet kill-switch – report > > [image: RIA Novosti / Alexandr Kryazhev] > > RIA Novosti / Alexandr Kryazhev > > Facing a possible cut-off from the internet by the US, Russian security > officials and IT giants are discussing the possibility to make the Russian > sector of the net independent, according to insiders. > > The issue would be discussed at several closed-door events in the days to > come, including a national Security Council session on Monday next week, > reports Vedomosti newspaper citing a number of unnamed security and > industry sources. > > The meeting of security officials, to be chaired by President Vladimir > Putin, will to discuss the results of a July Communications Ministry > exercise to test how robust the Russian internet infrastructure would be if > it were subject to a massive cyber-attack. The answer to that is reportedly > “Not robust enough.” > > Russia wants to, if not prevent, then at least control the potential > damage of a confrontation in cyberspace. Particularly, it wants the ‘runet’ > - the Russian part of the internet - to be able to operate independently > from the rest of the world in case of emergency, the newspaper cites a > security source as saying. > > The goal is not to have ‘an internet of its own’, like North Korea’s. It’s > also not about being able to shut down electronic communications in Russia > in the face of massive riots, as Turkey and Egypt recently did, although > such an option would be welcomed, the report says. > > Rather it is to ensure that if the US government uses its emergency powers > to cut Russian IP addresses from service, then backup servers would be > ready to step in. Back in 2012, US President Barack Obama signed an > executive order allowing him to take control > of all > communications on American soil, including those crucial for the normal > operation of the internet. > > The US also reportedly has a history of cutting a country off the > internet. According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the agency unintentionally > caused the > November 2012 internet blackout in Syria as it was trying to install > spyware on one of the core routers. > > The possible measures, including a possible government take-over of the > functions of the .ru and .рф domain name registrar, come amid Russia’s > frustration with lack of progress in making ICANN, the chief internet > protocol and domain name system body, less dependent on the United States. > Moscow has been for years campaigning for giving ICANN’s job to an > organization working under the United Nations. > > The internet independence plans however may be hurdled by technical and > administrative difficulties, told Vedomosti the Russian internet ombudsman, > Dmitry Marinchev. Unlike China, which developed its segment of the internet > with the goal of keeping tight control over it in mind, Russia allowed the > ‘runet’ to organically grow from foreign parts of the infrastructure. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Sep 20 05:13:20 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:13:20 +0100 Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 08:20:22 on Thu, 18 Sep 2014, McTim writes >They have spent so much so fast that they are actually cutting the >budget for 2015, as new gTLD revenues are significantly lower than what >was anticipated.  > >The latest in this saga is that the Gala, a staple of ICANN meetings >has been cut from the Agenda I had always supposed they were paid for by the sponsors, and are often held in what amount to public buildings so perhaps subsidised by low hire fees from the host country. But one lives and learns. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Sep 20 06:19:59 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 17:19:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <541D54CF.2000004@gmx.net> On 9/20/2014 4:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , > at 08:20:22 on Thu, 18 Sep 2014, McTim writes >> They have spent so much so fast that they are actually cutting the >> budget for 2015, as new gTLD revenues are significantly lower than >> what was anticipated. >> >> The latest in this saga is that the Gala, a staple of ICANN meetings >> has been cut from the Agenda > > I had always supposed they were paid for by the sponsors, and are > often held in what amount to public buildings so perhaps subsidised by > low hire fees from the host country. But one lives and learns. My dictionary says "saga": A long, involved story, account, or series of incidents. OK - any real information about this multi-million dollar saga? If I remember correctly, many of the "gala" events at ICANN meetings were sponsored by the local hosts, no? Norbert Klein Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 20 08:49:20 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:19:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> Message-ID: <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of resignation (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked below. What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of ICANN.... It is just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply not willing enough to speak about the emperor's clothes. But the charade cannot go on forever, and once it is behind us many involved people will look really bad. parminder On Friday 19 September 2014 06:33 PM, McTim wrote: > I didn't have to sign anything that said anything about what I could > or couldn't say at the meeting. > > I went as part of NCSG. > > You can Google "ICANN travel policy" for details. > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> Thanks - can you please elaborate on "no-strings attached travel funding to >> participate in person" - and I would welcome to see whether or not this is a >> general experience, for example for GNSO council members, chairs of official >> ICANN working groups, and others of the "many thousands of people around the >> world as the policy making community." >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> On 9/18/2014 8:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can >>> be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mandate or IANA function? If the latter, you are correct. >>> >>> ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's >>> geopolitical interests >>> >>> ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on meetings 3x >>> per year in far flung locations around the world. >>> >>> Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around >>> the world as the policy making community, they could do their job using far >>> fewer resources. >>> >>> This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature for CS >>> folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in >>> person. >>> >>> -- >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >>> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 20 09:07:30 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:37:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <21531.12483.39369.373365@world.std.com> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541AE64D.9000101@itforchange.net> <21531.12483.39369.373365@world.std.com> Message-ID: <541D7C12.4050904@itforchange.net> On Friday 19 September 2014 12:51 AM, Barry Shein wrote: > On September 18, 2014 at 19:33 parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) wrote: > > Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global > > public is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that promotes the > > interests of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, which is a matter > > of life and death to so many poor people, is likely to auction .book to > > Amazon as a closed generic, so that Amazon holds the rights to what can > > be called as a digital book, and so many other monstrosities... > > There seems to be this idea floating around that new TLDs have some > higher purpose than just a place to register SLDs. You probably dont know that the.health in its current arrangement will be 'policed' as to who would be given sub domain names under it and who will be refused.... My problem is that this will be done by a US group, close to big pharma, following US norms, standards and law, while English is spoken widely outside the US and this should have been done by a body that is subject to international norms/ standards/ law. In any case, US norms/ standards about intellectual property - the biggest costs in drugs - is most extreme and most contested, a US based organisation, close to US big pharma should certainly not be doing the 'policing'. > > The idea has come up from time to time in a highly inconsistent manner > which feeds the confusion. So it's understandable. Much like people > imagine there's someone in charge of internet content in general. > > Similar for .BOOK. > > With some notable exceptions here and there (e.g., GAC non-binding > input) ICANN's process for new TLDs has been registry/registrar driven Exactly the problem... These things should be driven by global public interest, but just by the interests of the concerned industry , over whom ICANN should be acting as a regulator. It is such a complete governance/ regulatory model screw up which is the real problem with ICANN. It is so structural that it needs basic changes, which is why I have never bothered to engage with all thsoe superficial engagement processes that ICANN keeps devising and running... > and only rarely based on some strict notion of what should be done > with the TLD beyond perhaps keep to the implied theme at least until > registrations slow down. Of course the notion that market takes care of all, every aspect of public interest as well, and only if market slows down it needs to be somehow pushed! Now I cant begin arguing with you, or that matter with McTim, on such basic ideological issues. It only hurts that such sentiments have taken over key global 'civil society' spaces to in fact become the dominant sentiments. parminder > Where there is some implied theme. One can look through the nTLD > applications for hints. > > My favorite example: .CAMERA would seem to imply photography > equipment. Yet it also means "room" in Spanish. So would selling SLDs > to both the photography industry and hotels in Spanish speaking > countries violate an assumption as implied above? > > My point being: What is any of this grousing based on? Beyond some > imagining of how one might otherwise base their own nTLD program if > they were in charge? Fantasy football. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Sep 20 11:17:12 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:17:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> Message-ID: <541D9A78.6080400@acm.org> Hi, I would add that for those of us who are being supported becasue we have been elected to support organization councils or advisory committees there are varying requirements like: - attend all of the meeting pertinent to your responsibilities - and in some cases, but not all, producing trip reports, aka blog entries, that are shared openly in the specific Support Organization and Advisory Committee (SOAC is an acronym often used to refer to this collection) wiki spaces. I can support the view that I have never heard of anyone being denied funding for their variant view views or the things the say. And while we are mostly insiders, except for most of the fellows ICANN brings each time, none of us has signed anything even resembling loyalty oath and some of us are known at time for being the polite, and sometimes not so polite, opposition. Some of us also are required by the organizations[1] we are associated with to keep an updated Statement of Interests on public display[2]. avri [1] e.g. Generic names supporting organization (GNSO) and At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) [2] For GNSO: On 19-Sep-14 09:03, McTim wrote: > I didn't have to sign anything that said anything about what I could > or couldn't say at the meeting. > > I went as part of NCSG. > > You can Google "ICANN travel policy" for details. > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> Thanks - can you please elaborate on "no-strings attached travel funding to >> participate in person" - and I would welcome to see whether or not this is a >> general experience, for example for GNSO council members, chairs of official >> ICANN working groups, and others of the "many thousands of people around the >> world as the policy making community." >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> On 9/18/2014 8:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can >>> be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mandate or IANA function? If the latter, you are correct. >>> >>> ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's >>> geopolitical interests >>> >>> ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on meetings 3x >>> per year in far flung locations around the world. >>> >>> Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around >>> the world as the policy making community, they could do their job using far >>> fewer resources. >>> >>> This spending is a feature, not a bug. It is a very useful feature for CS >>> folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in >>> person. >>> >>> -- >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >>> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ymshana2003 at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 04:32:46 2014 From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:32:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on Message-ID: <1ptiincd50ytk0q7p3krahd9.1411288366782@email.android.com> +1 Avril. Please allow me to say somtjing ad an observer of the this Caucus. This is a very delicate debate since perceptions matter to a very large extent in this community.  It is posdible that, sometimes, views by individuals can be 'watered down' if they are found to be unpalatable.  This is for example, a question about "which Law should ICANN processes adhere to?" was raised during the ccNSO Council mtg in Mar de Plata in year 2005. This question was not dealt with then during PDP. Now ...the ICANN By Laws are being challenged from left-right and centre. .. As an outsider, I think that CS is doing a good job in IGF and issues.  Bravo! Yassin Mshana Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Avri Doria Date:20/09/2014 17:17 (GMT+02:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on Hi, I would add that for those of us who are being supported becasue we have been elected to support organization councils or advisory committees there are varying requirements like: - attend all of the meeting pertinent to your responsibilities - and in some cases, but not all, producing trip reports, aka blog entries, that are shared openly in the specific Support Organization and Advisory Committee (SOAC is an acronym often used to refer to this collection) wiki spaces. I can support the view that I have never heard of anyone being denied funding for their variant view views or the things the say. And while we are mostly insiders, except for most of the fellows ICANN brings each time, none of us has signed anything even resembling loyalty oath and some of us are known at time for being the polite, and sometimes not so polite, opposition. Some of us also are required by the organizations[1] we are associated with to keep an updated Statement of Interests on public display[2]. avri [1] e.g. Generic names supporting organization (GNSO) and At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) [2] For GNSO: On 19-Sep-14 09:03, McTim wrote: > I didn't have to sign anything that said anything about what I could > or couldn't say at the meeting. > > I went as part of NCSG. > > You can Google "ICANN travel policy" for details. > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> Thanks - can you please elaborate on "no-strings attached travel funding to >> participate in person" - and I would welcome to see whether or not this is a >> general experience, for example for GNSO council members, chairs of official >> ICANN working groups, and others of the "many thousands of people around the >> world as the policy making community." >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> On 9/18/2014 8:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>>     The simple tasks that is the mandate of the ICANN to perform can >>>     be done at maybe 5 percent of ICANN's budget or at least revenue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mandate or IANA function?  If the latter, you are correct. >>> >>>     ICANN is just highly puffed up for basically serving US's >>>     geopolitical interests >>> >>> ICANN is "puffed up" because it costs a lot of money to put on meetings 3x >>> per year in far flung locations around the world. >>> >>> Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around >>> the world as the policy making community, they could do their job using far >>> fewer resources. >>> >>> This spending is a feature, not a bug.  It is a very useful feature for CS >>> folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in >>> person. >>> >>> -- >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurcharya at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 01:52:36 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:22:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess In-Reply-To: <1489b390b40.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <1489b390b40.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: @Rafik: Thank you for addressing one of the substantive issues raised by me. I appreciate your clarification that there will be no limit to the number of observers. I further request you to clarify the following: 1) How will you reach "broad support" or consensus of the community as mandated by NTIA if you are restricting consensus to the members (comprised only of ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC) who do not represent the majority of the stakeholders? For example, you may be aware that almost half of the ccTLDs feel that they are not represented by the ccNSO. Refer http://domainincite.com/17113-cctld-anger-over-iana-group-capture 2) Is there going to be a last date for becoming an observer or finalising the list of observers; if yes, what will happen to the individuals who want to join the discussion at a later point in time?; if there is no end date for finalising the list of observers, then what is the purpose behind creating that list? 3) What is the need for creating the group called observers when one should ideally want everyone to observe? One could draw inspiration from the workings of the ICG, which are open to observation by all and does not require registration or sending a statement of purpose. As a suggestion, wont it be simpler/transparent/inclusive to remove the category called observers? @Milton: I personally agree with the logic that the proposals should come only from the operational communities as long as the proposal development processes are open and inclusive. I only request the ICG to monitor and ensure that the processes are genuinely open and inclusive. A review of the three proposal development processes at this stage would be more appropriate that ex-post fault picking. I wish I had avoided bringing the reference to ALACs objection at the 3rd conference call as it has distracted you from addressing the concern about the non-inclusive proposal development processes adopted by the three operational communities. The part about ALACs objection may please be ignored. However, since you have called me a liar, please allow me to refresh your memory with reference to the transcripts from the 3rd call: "This is Jean‐Jacques speaking. To point out something which poses a problem for the At Large representatives, and that is, throughout the text there is two strong distinctions between the operational communities or entities and the rest on the other.... But from the input, right from the start, such a strong distinction being made, seems quite curious to me, and in fact, quite unacceptable. The proposals which will be made by the whole of the ICG, should be part of the proposals of the operational communities, and of other affected communities." to which your (MM) reply is "Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing the responses. So what exactly is missing here Jean‐Jacques? I don’t get it.". The reply of other ICG members is along similar lines "it is best for stakeholders to work through the operational communities in the creation of the operational proposals, but when you get to the second step, which is the creation of a proposal from the operational proposal, then the broader group of stakeholders can also directly input to us." On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Btw - Pseudonymous speech is fine but trying to use igc as a rather > misinformed stalking horse for icann politics isn't a really good thing to > do. Not that it doesn't get tried quite often.. > > On 22 September 2014 7:40:44 am Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> >> >The ICG, in the RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only >> from the three operational communities. >> >> >> >> Not true. The processes are _*convened*_ by the operational communities, >> and need to be centered there because of their direct use of the IANA >> functions, but the processes are _*required*_ to be open. >> >> >> >> >The ICG has also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by >> individuals (not belonging to any of the three >communities) will be >> forwarded to the operational communities for consideration. >> >> >> >> That is true. That is because people should not be misled into thinking >> that it is the ICG that will be designing and developing the proposals. >> People who want to make comment should participant in the operational >> community process. Sending us comments is a sure way to make sure that the >> people who really need to hear your comments will not get them directly. >> >> >> >> However, after we have received finished proposals from all 3 OC’s and >> have assembled a proposal for the NTIA, there will be a public comments >> period on the entire proposal >> >> >> >> >The rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that >> the processes initiated by the three >operational communities will be >> inclusive and open to participation by all. >> >> >> >> Not quite correct. The main rationale for not sending proposals to the >> ICG (either from individuals or anyone else) is that WE AREN’T MAKING A >> DECISION AS TO WHAT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. That is to be decided in a bottom >> up fashion in a process convened by 3 distinct Operational communities. >> >> >> >> >The opposition to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining >> members of the ICG >> >> > in the 3rd conference call. >> >> >> >> False, all of the amendments and clarifications sought by ALAC and by >> NCUC were incorporated into the RFP. >> >> You are either lying or you did not listen to the conference call. >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 02:09:39 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:09:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess In-Reply-To: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20CAD346-7A0F-43F6-9643-C771B48B0757@gmail.com> Milton, Not to enter the details, - we are still years away from a democratic MS model indeed - but just reflecting about the tone and style of your answers to Guru... Weren't you the one calling for a global Internet community upraising back in Istanbul? Is this the way you want to help achieve this utopian community? Could you hold your fire and address simply and gently legitimate questions and issues with a more subtile fashion so that your points, if correct, make it through, instead of behaving like some sort of English Pitt bull? These questions were rather good, as we can see that answers were bringing some clarification to those not so well informed, or simply willing to participate actively. We should all encourage dialogue, and not war in this space. Keep it factual, please JC Le 22 sept. 2014 à 04:09, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > >The ICG, in the RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only from the three operational communities. > > Not true. The processes are _convened_ by the operational communities, and need to be centered there because of their direct use of the IANA functions, but the processes are _required_ to be open. > > >The ICG has also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by individuals (not belonging to any of the three >communities) will be forwarded to the operational communities for consideration. > > That is true. That is because people should not be misled into thinking that it is the ICG that will be designing and developing the proposals. People who want to make comment should participant in the operational community process. Sending us comments is a sure way to make sure that the people who really need to hear your comments will not get them directly. > > However, after we have received finished proposals from all 3 OC’s and have assembled a proposal for the NTIA, there will be a public comments period on the entire proposal > > >The rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that the processes initiated by the three >operational communities will be inclusive and open to participation by all. > > Not quite correct. The main rationale for not sending proposals to the ICG (either from individuals or anyone else) is that WE AREN’T MAKING A DECISION AS TO WHAT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. That is to be decided in a bottom up fashion in a process convened by 3 distinct Operational communities. > > >The opposition to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining members of the ICG > > in the 3rd conference call. > > False, all of the amendments and clarifications sought by ALAC and by NCUC were incorporated into the RFP. > You are either lying or you did not listen to the conference call. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 22 04:11:47 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:11:47 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 References: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642694@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2037748976.16933.1411335080415.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j20> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016426B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Adama would be great if he accept to chair the CS WSIS 10+ (++) mechanism. Is there already a timetable for the NY Event in December 2015? W -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Gesendet: So 21.09.2014 23:31 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; William Drake; Lea Kaspar Cc: Best Bits; Governance Betreff: re: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 Thanks, Wolfgang for your suggestion. CS as an entity is absent since the beginning of the second part of the WSIS follow-up process : no meetings, no debate, no mandated speakers in the various sessions, only CS people or self-proclaimed CS representatives who expressed their opinion. In the best case these CS people used to speak on behalf of a/their organisation or a group of organisations. Therefore I fully agree for coming back to our rather effective groups, first of which the "Content & Themes" group, but above all we need our "Plenary" to play its role as the CS forum for our debates, for selecting the main issues to be discussed and working out the themes to be presented during the intergouvernmemntal sessions. Of course, IG will remain the bullet point and IGF the center of our concern. But there are other issues of equal interest, such as (innovative) Financing Mechanisms for development programs and particularly for the implementation of WSIS goals (i.e. the "revised" and updated Geneva Action Plan).    For this  "aggiornamento" to become a reality, we -the CS orgs and representatives- need CONGO as soon as the preparatory process for the NY WSIS event. I do hope that Geneva will be hosting this preparatory phase that should organize at least two "PrepComs". Above all, we need an appropriate financing for our colleagues and friends from DCs to be able to prepare and attend these PrepComs.   BTW, speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a Chairman. I have no hesitation in stating that Adama Samassekou is the best suited for this job.    Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack           > Message du 17/09/14 17:22 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "William Drake" , "Lea Kaspar" > Copie à : "Best Bits" , "Governance" > Objet : AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 > > It would make sense to start a process which could lead to a re-vival of the CS structures from WSIS (2002 - 2005 with a plenary, Bureau, Content & Themes and WGs)with a view to coordinate CS involvement in the preparation for IGF 2015, UNCSTD and WSIS 10+ in December 2015 in New York. The new "CS Group of CS Groups" is a good start. To get recognized by other stakeholders, in particular by governments, we need a working structure which is open, transparent, inclusive and allows a bottom PDP which leads to serious statements on concrete issues. If needed, smaller issue based CS working groups could be established. BTW, what role CONGO (the UN NGO Network) is playing today? They could be helpful in NY. > > Wolfgang > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake > Gesendet: Mi 17.09.2014 17:08 > An: Lea Kaspar > Cc: Best Bits; Governance > Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014 > > Hi > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > > Hi Bill, > > > > Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to > > the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. > > So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms. > > > > If this > > doesn't happen at the December meeting, it could be set up online > > independently. It might also be worth considering setting up a more > > long-term mechanism to ensure continuity and knowledge-transfer, through an > > advisory group of ex civil society MAG members or something similar. > > Good ideas if someone wants to put the energy into it..we've got ten years of CS @ MAG and no readily accessible institutional memory. > > > > Regardless of the new reps, do you know if there will be a way for the > > broader community to shape the agenda of the December meeting? > > Normally this is a pretty standard format event, I don't recall that there was ever much bottom up input but others can correct me. Doubt it was said they'd not accept some. Either way, we could start. If for example there was a broad-based CS letter saying that part of the time should be set aside for a serious discussion of the NETmundial mandate and otherwise strengthening the IGF (WGIGF etc), and we could point the Chair, Secretariat, and MAG to this and say hey there's community desire to talk about this, one suspects they would not ignore the request. But absent anyone calling for something different, it could default to the somewhat sleepy "review of the meeting" format in which people bounce around on how many workshops and main sessions and speakers per etc. > > Bill > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake > > Sent: 17 September 2014 07:44 > > To: Best Bits; Governance > > Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 > > December 2014 > > > > Hi > > > > The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG > > meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December > > 2014. This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing > > civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for > > follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF. If the meetings > > turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking > > about "what worked and what did not" in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the > > wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it > > will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015 > > meeting in Brazil. Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced > > in advance and will be able to attend. > > > > Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming > > might want to start looking into options now. There should be some bits of > > financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC's), > > Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies. Others will have to find > > their own way. > > > > I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil > > society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic. > > Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website. > > > > I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to > > come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that > > we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and > > experience. Don't know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe > > the civil society group would really benefit from something like this. > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > *********************************************** > > William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > > www.williamdrake.org > > *********************************************** > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ymshana2003 at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 04:18:13 2014 From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:18:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess Message-ID: <7ykq14wjclqnsmmrbm1kqrck.1411373893970@email.android.com> +1 to Guru's opinion. We can not have  'club' which operates in top- down approach. ..working in Box? Time for major changes or to let the Private Sector take over. ..? Kind regards.  Yassin Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Date:21/09/2014 23:53 (GMT+02:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Guru Acharya Subject: Re: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess Those lists are open. As are the operational communities where consensus driven decision making can be generated. If you have technically feasible alternate proposals, submit them there. --srs (iPad) On 22-Sep-2014, at 00:41, Guru Acharya wrote: The ICG, in the RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only from the three operational communities. The ICG has also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by individuals (not belonging to any of the three communities) will be forwarded to the operational communities for consideration. The rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that the processes initiated by the three operational communities will be inclusive and open to participation by all. The opposition to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining members of the ICG in the 3rd conference call. Unfortunately, unfolding events have demonstrated that the rationale offered by the ICG that the processes initiated by the three operational communities will be inclusive was incorrect and misleading. 1) The process initiated by the "names" community in the form of the Cross Community Working Group creates three classes of people - the members, the observers and the nobodys. The number of members and observers is limited to a minuscule and privileged few while the majority fall in the category of nobodys - excluded from the process entirely. Its hard to appreciate how this process is inclusive or bottoms-up. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Members+and+Observers 2) The established incumbent members of the "protocols" community have released a draft version of the proposal (without any translations) even before the release of the final RFP. The proposal mostly suggests that no changes are required. While one might argue that any proposal emerging on a mailing list is bottoms-up, to me the medium of exchange does not change the fact that the draft was released by the established incumbent leaders (top-down) merely for suggestions by the remaining members without any clue how that initial draft came about. Notably their first conference call on the subject is also at a time convenient to the participants from the United States. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00089.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00379.html 3) The secretariat of the "numbers" community has unilaterally released draft principles inviting comments at a conference in a remote location inaccessible to the general public. This again appears to be a top-down approach wherein the proposal appears to demonstrate that the leaders have a set of predisposed expectations which we can merely comment on. Any proposal by us will obviously not shine in front of the majorly publicized blog of the secretariat. blog.apnic.net/2014/09/08/iana-session-apnic-38-a-discussion-proposal/#iana The RFP clearly states that the processes initiated by the three communities must be inclusive and open. This was the rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals in response to the RFP. This condition has clearly been vitiated  by the operational communities leaving the majority of us to question the legitimacy of any proposal that emerges. I feel that the ICG needs to intervene and urgently correct this anomaly before it becomes too late. Guru Acharya Independent Policy Analyst ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Sep 22 08:24:57 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:24:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> Message-ID: >But Best Bits should also make sure to have some >strong names from 'developing' countries. Also, >keep in mind that people nominated from >developed countries would need to have access to >funding to attend meetings of the MAG. Support >for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is >generally only available for people from >developing countries. In my time on the MAG from >2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support >to attend a MAG meeting on 2 occasions and on >one of those the funding did not include airfare. +1000 What Anriette exposes is a fundamental issue of true democratic participation in global context and her experience is a crude testimony of what is really happening behind the nice discourses. I would say it is not only an issue for Best Bits, it should be a key issue for all and every IGF and ICANN mechanisms of participation as for any global multiskakeholder attempt to reach some form of justice... and BTW, the actual global economic crisis makes this issue still more acute as many (bi or multilateral) support funding have been fading away. Transparency of the flow of support and the associated criteria of selection is also an important part of this issue. And to react and connect 2 independant threads in the same mail: >speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a >Chairman. I have no hesitation in stating that >Adama Samassekou is the best suited for this job. Indeed Jean-Louis, Adama would be the perfect choice... and he is deeply aware of the first issue. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 08:17:22 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:17:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess In-Reply-To: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>The ICG, in the RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only from >> the three operational communities. > > Not true. The processes are _convened_ by the operational communities, and > need to be centered there because of their direct use of the IANA functions, > but the processes are _required_ to be open. > >>The ICG has also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by >> individuals (not belonging to any of the three >communities) will be >> forwarded to the operational communities for consideration. > > That is true. That is because people should not be misled into thinking that > it is the ICG that will be designing and developing the proposals. People > who want to make comment should participant in the operational > community process. Sending us comments is a sure way to make sure > that the people who really need to hear your comments will not get them > directly. > > However, after we have received finished proposals from all 3 OC’s and > have assembled a proposal for the NTIA, there will be a public comments > period on the entire proposal > >>The rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that the >> processes initiated by the three >operational communities will be inclusive >> and open to participation by all. > > Not quite correct. The main rationale for not sending proposals to the ICG > (either from individuals or anyone else) is that WE AREN’T MAKING A > DECISION AS TO WHAT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. That is to be decided > in a bottom up fashion in a process convened by 3 distinct Operational > communities. Whatever else we might say at present, this setup will enable questions regarding the role of the ITU in the broader context to be placed within the frame of a dispute between ccTLDs that disagree with aspects of ICANN's role, and an advocate community activated on governance issues within the operational communities of ICANN. Seth >>The opposition to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining >> members of the ICG >> in the 3rd conference call. > > False, all of the amendments and clarifications sought by ALAC and by > NCUC were incorporated into the RFP. > > You are either lying or you did not listen to the conference call. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 09:35:48 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:35:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <20140922112745.DCF9F80967@bestbits.net> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <20140922112745.DCF9F80967@bestbits.net> Message-ID: I agree completely with Anriette and with Daniel in their concern over funding. However, it is not only funding (lack of) that can get in the way of participation, particularly at the physical level. People have lives, and those lives are often full already of jobs, children, dependent relatives, the type of minor ill-health that makes travelling a problem, – even houses and pets, and the intimidation of joining a group where few may speak your language. This “life baggage”, the list is only of random examples, encumbers at the virtual level as well, but to a lesser extent. In taking this perspective which prioritises physical meetings we may be missing something of great importance. When we speak about this “new democratic model” powered by the Internet we are talking about the empowerment that comes from VIRTUAL participation, where anyone with access can join the debate from anywhere. That is why access must remain at the top of the priority list, until the majority who lack this empowerment also share it. Meanwhile we must be careful not to allow the empowerment to be dissipated by favouring the physical over the virtual. This is a point that I made at the BestBits meeting in Istanbul. We need to practise what we preach. Are we concerned about those who attend meetings virtually as “civil society”? No – because anyone with access who wishes may attend. Do we attend meetings when only a “virtual” option is open to us? … The “other side” in the debate that we are engaged in has the arrangement of meetings down to a fine art. Meetings are how their world is run. Physical meetings that is, or meetings run to a “physical meeting” format. They are not comfortable with the apparent chaos when anyone can speak. The “physical” environment is much easier to control and manage. It is their environment after all. So why do we allow ourselves to be herded and manipulated into their space to discuss our issues? Deirdre On 22 September 2014 08:24, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names from > 'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people nominated from > developed countries would need to have access to funding to attend meetings > of the MAG. Support for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is generally > only available for people from developing countries. In my time on the MAG > from 2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support to attend a MAG > meeting on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did not include > airfare. > > +1000 > > What Anriette exposes is a fundamental issue of true democratic > participation in global context and her experience is a crude testimony of > what is really happening behind the nice discourses. > > I would say it is not only an issue for Best Bits, it should be a key > issue for all and every IGF and ICANN mechanisms of participation as for > any global multiskakeholder attempt to reach some form of justice... and > BTW, the actual global economic crisis makes this issue still more acute as > many (bi or multilateral) support funding have been fading away. > Transparency of the flow of support and the associated criteria of > selection is also an important part of this issue. > > And to react and connect 2 independant threads in the same mail: > > speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a Chairman. I have no > hesitation in stating that Adama Samassekou is the best suited for this > job. > > Indeed Jean-Louis, Adama would be the perfect choice... and he is deeply > aware of the first issue. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > believed to be clean. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bpotter at irf.org Mon Sep 22 10:07:45 2014 From: bpotter at irf.org (Bruce G. Potter) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:07:45 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <20140922112745.DCF9F80967@bestbits.net> Message-ID: <8C49FFBF-7494-49FF-AEA4-15AEBD5F9015@irf.org> Brilliant Deirdre -- thanks (from a physical meeting of global small island experts (ISISA) in the Penghu Archipelago offshore Taiwan. Bruce On Sep 22, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I agree completely with Anriette and with Daniel in their concern over funding. However, it is not only funding (lack of) that can get in the way of participation, particularly at the physical level. People have lives, and those lives are often full already of jobs, children, dependent relatives, the type of minor ill-health that makes travelling a problem, – even houses and pets, and the intimidation of joining a group where few may speak your language. This “life baggage”, the list is only of random examples, encumbers at the virtual level as well, but to a lesser extent. > In taking this perspective which prioritises physical meetings we may be missing something of great importance. When we speak about this “new democratic model” powered by the Internet we are talking about the empowerment that comes from VIRTUAL participation, where anyone with access can join the debate from anywhere. That is why access must remain at the top of the priority list, until the majority who lack this empowerment also share it. > Meanwhile we must be careful not to allow the empowerment to be dissipated by favouring the physical over the virtual. This is a point that I made at the BestBits meeting in Istanbul. We need to practise what we preach. Are we concerned about those who attend meetings virtually as “civil society”? No – because anyone with access who wishes may attend. Do we attend meetings when only a “virtual” option is open to us? … > The “other side” in the debate that we are engaged in has the arrangement of meetings down to a fine art. Meetings are how their world is run. Physical meetings that is, or meetings run to a “physical meeting” format. They are not comfortable with the apparent chaos when anyone can speak. The “physical” environment is much easier to control and manage. It is their environment after all. > So why do we allow ourselves to be herded and manipulated into their space to discuss our issues? > Deirdre > > On 22 September 2014 08:24, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >> But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names from 'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people nominated from developed countries would need to have access to funding to attend meetings of the MAG. Support for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is generally only available for people from developing countries. In my time on the MAG from 2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support to attend a MAG meeting on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did not include airfare. > +1000 > > What Anriette exposes is a fundamental issue of true democratic participation in global context and her experience is a crude testimony of what is really happening behind the nice discourses. > > I would say it is not only an issue for Best Bits, it should be a key issue for all and every IGF and ICANN mechanisms of participation as for any global multiskakeholder attempt to reach some form of justice... and BTW, the actual global economic crisis makes this issue still more acute as many (bi or multilateral) support funding have been fading away. > Transparency of the flow of support and the associated criteria of selection is also an important part of this issue. > > And to react and connect 2 independant threads in the same mail: > >> speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a Chairman. I have no hesitation in stating that Adama Samassekou is the best suited for this job. > Indeed Jean-Louis, Adama would be the perfect choice... and he is deeply aware of the first issue. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t Bruce bpotter at irf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 22 11:56:17 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:56:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess In-Reply-To: References: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <1489b390b40.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <82c6a20a5420401b9f5cb8103def8ac7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya @Milton: I personally agree with the logic that the proposals should come only from the operational communities as long as the proposal development processes are open and inclusive. I only request the ICG to monitor and ensure that the processes are genuinely open and inclusive. A review of the three proposal development processes at this stage would be more appropriate that ex-post fault picking. I wish I had avoided bringing the reference to ALACs objection at the 3rd conference call as it has distracted you from addressing the concern about the non-inclusive proposal development processes adopted by the three operational communities. The part about ALACs objection may please be ignored. However, since you have called me a liar, please allow me to refresh your memory with reference to the transcripts from the 3rd call: "This is Jean‐Jacques speaking. To point out something which poses a problem for the At Large representatives, and that is, throughout the text there is two strong distinctions between the operational communities or entities and the rest on the other.... But from the input, right from the start, such a strong distinction being made, seems quite curious to me, and in fact, quite unacceptable. The proposals which will be made by the whole of the ICG, should be part of the proposals of the operational communities, and of other affected communities." to which your (MM) reply is "Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing the responses. So what exactly is missing here Jean‐Jacques? I don’t get it.". The reply of other ICG members is along similar lines "it is best for stakeholders to work through the operational communities in the creation of the operational proposals, but when you get to the second step, which is the creation of a proposal from the operational proposal, then the broader group of stakeholders can also directly input to us." MM: Since that exchange we discussed it further at the Sept 6 meeting, and modified the language in ways suggested by both Jean-Jacques and myself. You have to pay attention to the complete record. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 22 12:08:05 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:08:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess In-Reply-To: References: <042b79ec11fc4ffaacfcf7a1a5553032@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <1489b390b40.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8f78c99b888f491da26142f70eccbd3d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya I only request the ICG to monitor and ensure that the processes are genuinely open and inclusive. A review of the three proposal development processes at this stage would be more appropriate that ex-post fault picking. I have already intervened in the RIR/numbers process, because as far as I can tell they have not really opened up a global process. See my post at http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-September/029026.html This has gotten some support, so things may improve on that front. I am also actively monitoring the IETF/protocols process. In the end, though, what you call “ex post fault picking” will be the real tool, because we cannot tell whether a proposal had widespread support or whether one group unfairly dominated the process or whether legitimate objections were ignored or overriden until the process is finished; i.e., ex post. The ICG will welcome comments or objections to proceses if people experience real problems. Wouldn’t you say that ex post fault picking, wherein _real_ faults can be identified, is better than ex ante fault picking -- i.e., deciding in advance that everything is unfair or exclusionary before you even know what is it? --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 22 12:09:26 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:09:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: How would you know? You’ve never been to any of these meetings and don’t track the processes. What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of resignation (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked below. What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of ICANN.... It is just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply not willing enough to speak about the emperor's clothes. But the charade cannot go on forever, and once it is behind us many involved people will look really bad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 18:16:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:16:09 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <20140922181406.0C7B3807A9@bestbits.net> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <5420411B.4040905@softwarefreedom.org> <20140922181406.0C7B3807A9@bestbits.net> Message-ID: <037901cfd6b2$d23cdac0$76b69040$@gmail.com> Coming in late to this discussion I want to support Daniel (and Deidre’s) comments but also add that restricting funding support to those from LDC’s is highly discriminatory on several levels. While agreeing that extraordinary efforts should be made to ensure as wide a diversity of opinions as possible and that the inclusion of those from LDC’s needs to be a funding priority given the overall absence of available local resources for participation in these activities there is within this position the assumption that those from the Developed Countries will themselves have access to resources for participation. While this is certainly true in many instances it is generally true only for those with close affiliations of some sort to one or another of the major institutional sources of funding—universities, major NGO’s, major donors, more recently ICANN etc. Of course, not all suitable and desirable participants from DC’s will have such affiliations and it is at least arguable that those with the most independent and critical perspectives are those least likely to have such access to resources or to feel constrained in their positions if they were to accept support from certain available sources. My feeling is that an appropriate funding formula would be based on overall likelihood of effective and useful contribution where issues of geographical, gender, and normative diversity are all equally included as criteria. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Pimienta Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:13 AM To: Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) I support all the issues that Deirdre raises and would benefit immensely from hearing about solutions for the problems she presents. Mishi, Back, beetween 2000 and 2005, we have been (quite succesfully I would say from the many evaluations) experimenting methodologies for what we called "Distance Participation" in the project MISTICA (Methodologies and Social Impact of ICT in Latin America - http://funredes.org/mistica ) and at the same time we were also experimenting with imbedding translation into virtual community communication (to solve the second barreer for participation after distance which is language). MISTICA was not multistakeholder by design (it was centered on civil society) but indeed have make some interesting contributions to democratic process in virtual spaces which could apply to multi-stakeholder communities. The following paper (which by the way was translated from Spanish by Deirdre :-)) could give some insights to the whole process: At the Boundaries of Ethics and Cultures : Virtual Communities as an Open Ended Process Carrying the Will for Social Change (the "MISTICA" experience) . The method had nothing to do with the use of synchronous resources for broadcasting the meeting; it was, by design, an asynchronous management based on the following axiom: even if a virtual community organize a face to face meeting the center of gravity of the community remains virtual. The whole design of the meeting was made with that principle in mind, e.g. not allowing decisions be made by the lucky minority in face to face encounters but keeping a whole community process for decision making. This way of processing trigger many interesting consequences which warrant due and democratic processes and, I would say, provoke a radical change in the way face to face participants perceive their own participation. This obviously requires to think the design of the meeting differently, organizing delayed interactions after meeting sections, but that will keep face to face participants in sync with the community and allow sometime some interesting situation when a face to face participant can also interact by the virtual asynchronius channel. The same type of methodologies were also experimented at the same time by colleagues working for Fondation pour le Progrès de l'Humanité in order to manage the Alliance for a Responsible, Plureal and United World ( http://www.alliance21.org ). The French article on Wikipedia does refer to Distance Participation (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_pour_un_monde_responsable,_pluriel_et_ solidaire ). If people are interested I coud offer more details off the list. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 22 18:19:43 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:49:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9229E6BF-386B-4D34-BA94-EB30858CA6F4@hserus.net> Well, I suppose that's from the "there are people who want the RIRs to pull back from iGov meetings? Great, if they do that, there's far less people around to oppose plans for igov world domination / provide a reality check / whatever" type wishful thinking that sort of mail engenders I won't speak for others, but I dare say more than a little of the reaction that triggered this outburt is because of a visceral loathing of the bureaucratic and politics ridden nature of more than one global igov conference. --srs (iPad) > On 22-Sep-2014, at 21:39, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder: > How would you know? You’ve never been to any of these meetings and don’t track the processes. > > > What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of resignation (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked below. What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of ICANN.... It is just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply not willing enough to speak about the emperor's clothes. But the charade cannot go on forever, and once it is behind us many involved people will look really bad. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Tue Sep 23 11:03:39 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:03:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] [CITIMA2014] Submission deadline extended: September 30, 2014 Message-ID: <014101cfd73f$8ee186d0$aca49470$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this cfp] **************************************************************************** ********************************* CITIMA2014 First International Workshop on Computational Intelligence Techniques for Industrial and Medical Applications Collocated with: SITIS 2014 - The 10h International Conference on SIGNAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGY & INTERNET BASED SYSTEMS November 23-27, 2014 - Marrakech, Morocco http://www.sitis-conf.org **************************************************************************** ********************************* ** Scope of the Workshop Computational Intelligence techniques are adopted in many industrial applications, like visual based quality control, image enhancement in consumer electronics, video based recognition of identity or behaviors, audio based speech recognition for enhanced human like interaction with machines etc. It also has a strong impact in medical applications, like medical image enhancement, semi-automatic detection of pathologies, pre-filtering and reconstruction of volumes from medical scans etc. Despite this growing diffusion, there are still many possible areas where computational intelligence application is partial or could be extended and improved, due to the actual limitations in terms of computational power or strict requirements in terms of assurance of the results. This workshop aims to investigate the impact of the adoption of advanced and innovative Computational Intelligence techniques in industrial and medical applications. This edition of the workshop is focused primarily on Imaging and Multimedia based industrial and medical applications with special emphasis to real time systems The workshop will bring together researchers on different disciplines from academia and industry with a common objective: go beyond the frontiers of today industrial applications of Computational Intelligence techniques. Topics for the workshop include, but are not limited to: - Imaging for Industrial applications - Computational Intelligence approaches in Consumer Electronics - Real-time Multimedia Signal Processing - Intelligent User Interfaces - Virtual-augmented reality for Healthcare - Real-time digital images & watermarking - Real-time signal compression and analysis - Spatial and temporal estimation and protection of media streams - Learning systems for signal and information processing and evidential reasoning for recognition - Soft computing approaches for embedded multimedia systems - Real time signal processing & vision - Expert system for embedded system - Color and illumination processing ** Important dates Submission deadline: September 30, 2014 *FIRM* Acceptance/Reject notification: October 6, 2014 Camera-ready: October 15, 2014 Author Registration: October 19, 2014 ** Submission Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and must follow the IEEE double columns publication format. All submitted papers will be carefully evaluated based on originality, significance, technical soundness, and clarity of expression by at least two reviewers. The organizers will examine the reviews and make final paper selections. ** Publication All the papers accepted for the workshop will be included in the conference proceedings. The proceedings will be published by IEEE Computer Society and referenced in IEEE Xplore Digital Library and major indexes. They will be available at the conference. ** Registration At least one author of each accepted paper must register for the workshop. A single registration for the workshop or the conference allows attending both events. ** Program Co-Chairs M. Anisetti Università degli studi di Milano, Italy R. Sassi Università degli studi di Milano, Italy V. Bellandi, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy G. Jeon, Incheon National University, Korea ** Contacts marco.anisetti at unimi.it roberto.sassi at unimi.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 18:32:50 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:32:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Call for nominations for Civil Society representation on the IGF's MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wish to remind you that nominations will close by Sept 30, that is, next Tuesday -- meaning the CSCG should be receiving all nominated candidates' statement addressing the four selection criteria by that date. Thank you, Mawaki On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear all, > > Following our notice and call for comments posted here on Sept 12 (below > for your reference), here is the formal call for nominations for civil > society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). > > This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society > coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net > Coalition, who together comprise the Civil Society Coordination Group. You > are welcome to nominate through any of the above individual coalitions. > Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30, 2014. > > If you wish to nominate via IGC, or you have been nominated and wish to > accept, please do so either on list or by email to kichango at gmail.com (by > reply to this email or in a new email with 'MAG nomination' in the subject > line.) > > Please include in your nomination the nominee's name, country of > residence, country of nationality, and gender. Please also specifically > address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and > evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria. > > CRITERIA > > * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on > behalf of public interest concerns. > > > * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks > (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) > on > MAG discussions. > > * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively > in the MAG deliberations. > > > > Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this > process. > > Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates > endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16. > > More about the IGF and the MAG can be obtained from www.intgovforum.org > Best regards, > Mawaki > IGC Co-coordinator > > > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> >> >> Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards >> Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) nominations >> and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group >> (CSCG) might play. >> >> The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil >> society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the >> Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with no >> active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the first >> time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements between our >> groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. To remedy >> this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a more >> comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates. >> >> In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday >> (September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your >> comments are sought on the following. >> >> >> >> TIMETABLE >> >> >> >> The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition >> member will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated with >> others at a later stage >> >> Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection criteria >> >> >> >> Tues, September 30 - close of nominations >> >> >> >> October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from various >> coalitions >> >> >> >> October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names to lists >> >> >> >> October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your comments on this are welcome. >> >> PROCEDURES >> >> The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, >> but your input is welcome. >> >> >> >> The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and >> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside >> bodies. >> >> >> >> The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for >> civil society appointments is received. >> >> >> >> 1. CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by >> either one >> of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS involvement. >> When >> such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has been requested >> and, in >> a case where CS already has representation, consult with existing >> representatives in clarifying the involvement required. >> >> 2. CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS >> representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to >> be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination >> to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. >> (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members >> choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision >> to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of >> chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the >> primary responsibility of each constituency. >> >> 3. Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as part >> of any process must announce that intention before a call for candidates is >> announced, and may nominate another representative of their coalition to >> take their place on the Nomcom. >> >> 4. CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any >> appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates. >> >> 5. CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process. >> >> 6. A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each >> nomination process. >> >> 7. Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition >> will issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to >> CSCG at the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to >> shortlist their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to >> forward all names received >> >> 8. Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked >> to address selection criteria in their nominations. >> >> 9. The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non >> voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who >> choose not to participate in a particular process. >> >> 10. The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate >> procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances suggest >> otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a shortlisting >> process, which will assist in identifying most favoured candidates and >> which candidates should be examined more closely. Following from >> shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication of which >> candidates should be selected, Nomcom members will arrive at the final >> candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary conference >> linkups to determine the final slates. >> >> 11. All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests >> of civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in >> determining appropriate representatives >> >> 12. All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance >> in determining their final selections, while considering also the need >> for the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society >> to be represented. While realising that complete balance will not be >> able to be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members are >> requested to take into account any such deficits in balances in previous >> CSCG decisions in making selections, with an objective of achieving balance >> over a period of time which may not be achievable in every particular case. >> >> 13. The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the >> process is completed. >> >> >> >> >> >> SELECTION CRITERIA >> >> The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your comments >> (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate of >> candidates) >> >> >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society >> groups working on internet governance issues >> >> 2. Consultative style >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF >> >> 4. Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for candidates >> will be issued on Thursday, September 18. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> (Independent Chair, CSCG) >> >> >> >> CSCG members are: >> >> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia >> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director >> >> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member >> >> Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research >> >> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet >> Governance Programmes >> >> Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor >> >> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, >> Co-Coordinator >> >> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, >> NCSG Executive Committee >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From subi.igp at gmail.com Thu Sep 25 03:53:57 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:23:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Call for input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, This is a call for input. Do please share it amongst your networks and contribute. Regards Subi Chaturvedi Call for input for the next Open Consultations and MAG meeting Best regards, Chengetai Call for Input All stakeholders are invited to submit by 27 October 2014 written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Sep 25 05:01:29 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:01:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> Dear all As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for rotation) I think it is very important that we submit well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as possible attend the December meetings. I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights related workshops as was the case in Istanbul. And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis for submission. The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support for the next IGF Also some specific things to focus on would be: 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback on what worked what did not, etc. 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in progress' which still has flaws in my view 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare them. Best Anriette *Call for Input* All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Sep 25 05:32:12 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:32:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> References: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi +100 with one small addition On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for rotation) I think it is very important that we submit well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as possible attend the December meetings. > > I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights related workshops as was the case in Istanbul. > > And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis for submission. > > The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support for the next IGF > > Also some specific things to focus on would be: > > 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback on what worked what did not, etc. > > 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in progress' which still has flaws in my view > > 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) 4) Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others. There are various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see some of them in submissions. Best Bill > > So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare them. > > Best > > Anriette > > Call for Input > All stakeholders are invited to submit by 27 October 2014 written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Sep 25 05:42:36 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:42:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <10BCECEB-8533-4F26-B662-B527897A576B@gmail.com> Hello I would like to nominate Matt Shears (UK) of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Matt has a proven record of professionalism and ability to work constructively not only with civil society partners but also governments and others stakeholders in such settings as the WSIS & WSIS+10, IGF, ITU, CSTD, and beyond. He would be an excellent addition to the CS MAG contingent. Best, Bill On Sep 19, 2014, at 2:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners Digital for all the same reasons. > > Best > > Bill > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest candidates we can get for this job. >> >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm: >>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the >>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). >>> >>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society >>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net >>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. >>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30 >>> >>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and >>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to >>> jmalcolm at eff.org. >>> >>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of >>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address >>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of >>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria. >>> >>> CRITERIA >>> >>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >>> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out >>> assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. >>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >>> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance >>> where appropriate) on MAG discussions. >>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >>> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >>> >>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this >>> process. >>> >>> >>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates >>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> https://eff.org >>> jmalcolm at eff.org >>> >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >>> >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 26 04:11:34 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:41:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] OT - Fwd: [india-gii] communicator for a deaf-mute low vision person In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <148b103c398.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Not quite related to igov. However, forwarded for those who work with / know those working on ict for the visually challenged --- Forwarded message --- Date: 26 September 2014 12:26:32 pm Subject: [india-gii] communicator for a deaf-mute low vision person At the Helen Keller Institute for the Deaf and Deaf-Blind in Mumbai, there is a trainer who has been deaf since birth and does not speak, and also has been progressively losing vision. For my project seeking to bring smart phones into the lives of the deaf-blind, I could only communicate with him through sign-language interpretation. The need he immediately identified, was that he had immense difficulty communicating with most of the people around him, who did not know sign language. Spelling the word on the palm letter by letter also doesn't work too well in the local script, which is Devanagari. I therefore wrote the free Android app dbtype to address his pressing communication need, indeed also mine, since I am just a beginner in signing. Even if the app is not useful for you, I would be grateful for suggestions on how it might be improved. It's simple: Press the Say button to activate speech to text, which records till you pause, converts to text and displays in a text box using a large font size. Press Pick to select from the stored sentences to add to the contents of the text box, or to clear it. Press Say to convert this text to speech which can be heard through the speakers of the device. If the text box only contains the word "settings" (all small, no quotes), a new screen opens in which you can edit the stored sentences, and change the font size. Press the Save button to save your changes and return you to the main screen. The hope is that this can all be done by a low-vision person. There are no advertisements or data collection in this app. You can download the app fromhttps :// play.google.com /store/apps/details? id = appinventor.ai_arun_mehta.dbtype A video is at www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DyfzxVWA2E warmly, Arun ---------- _______________________________________________ India-gii mailing list India-gii at lists.india-gii.org https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Sep 26 06:01:31 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:01:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com> References: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record all the recommendations related to IG that we make? Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ? E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not to mention subregional ones. I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current site already provides a space for all contributions into open consultations: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf Anriette On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: > +1 > > Ephraim > > On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > +100 with one small addition > > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > > wrote: > > >> Dear all > >> > >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society > >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for > >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit > >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as > >> possible attend the December meetings. > >> > >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make > >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need > >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. > >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is > >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights > >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul. > >> > >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will > >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. > >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis > >> for submission. > >> > >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society > >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support > >> for the next IGF > >> > >> Also some specific things to focus on would be: > >> > >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback > >> on what worked what did not, etc. > >> > >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in > >> progress' which still has flaws in my view > >> > >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes > >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory > >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in > >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) > > > 4) Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial > > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is > > ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be > > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to > > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and > > others. There are various ideas about how this might be done, and > > it’d be great to see some of them in submissions. > > > Best > > > Bill > >> > >> So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit > >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare > >> them. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> *Call for Input* > >> > >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* > >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting > >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including > >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written > >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an > >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 > >> December. Please send all contributions to > >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org > >> . > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> . To unsubscribe or change > >> your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > *********************************************** William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, > > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users > > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > > www.williamdrake.org > > *********************************************** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Sep 26 06:07:42 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:07:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: <542539AA.90003@apc.org> Message-ID: <1411726062.41032.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> +1

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Sep 26 06:02:18 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:02:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> Message-ID: <542539AA.90003@apc.org> Thanks Bill.. very important addition. Anriette On 25/09/2014 11:32, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +100 with one small addition > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for rotation) >> I think it is very important that we submit well-prepared written >> submissions, and that as many of us as possible attend the December >> meetings. >> >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make sure >> that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need some >> fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. The Round >> Table format in my view works very well, but then it is imperative >> that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights related workshops as >> was the case in Istanbul. >> >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will also >> be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. APC >> will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis for >> submission. >> >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support for >> the next IGF >> >> Also some specific things to focus on would be: >> >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback on >> what worked what did not, etc. >> >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in progress' >> which still has flaws in my view >> >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes use >> of the services of someone who specialises in participatory event >> organisation (very good people that we have worked with in the past >> are https://aspirationtech.org/events) > > 4) Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement. > Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’ enough > to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for one day > in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate the > increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others. There are > various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see > some of them in submissions. > > Best > > Bill >> >> So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit collective >> inputs there is not that much time left to prepare them. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> *Call for Input* >> >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* written >> contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking >> forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, >> schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized >> into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and >> MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions >> to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> > Part.txt>____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Sep 26 06:26:06 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:26:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> References: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com> <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Anriette, I think this such an excellent and overdue idea that I wonder why it didn't come up earlier. Perhaps this is a better way to move towards tangible outcomes. Jeanette On 26 September 2014 12:01:31 CEST, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record >all >the recommendations related to IG that we make? > >Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ? > >E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not >to mention subregional ones. > >I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current >site already provides a space for all contributions into open >consultations: > >http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf > >Anriette > > >On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: >> +1 >> >> Ephraim >> >> On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote: >> > Hi >> >> > +100 with one small addition >> >> > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > > wrote: >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society >> >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for >> >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit >> >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as >> >> possible attend the December meetings. >> >> >> >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make >> >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need >> >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. >> >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is >> >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights >> >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul. >> >> >> >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will >> >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. >> >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis >> >> for submission. >> >> >> >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society >> >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support >> >> for the next IGF >> >> >> >> Also some specific things to focus on would be: >> >> >> >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback >> >> on what worked what did not, etc. >> >> >> >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in >> >> progress' which still has flaws in my view >> >> >> >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes >> >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory >> >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in >> >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) >> >> > 4) Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial >> > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is >> > ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be >> > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to >> > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and >> > others. There are various ideas about how this might be done, and >> > it’d be great to see some of them in submissions. >> >> > Best >> >> > Bill >> >> >> >> So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit >> >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare >> >> them. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> *Call for Input* >> >> >> >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* >> >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting >> >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including >> >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written >> >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an >> >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 >> >> December. Please send all contributions to >> >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Part.txt>____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> . To unsubscribe or change >> >> your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > *********************************************** William J. Drake >> > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, >> > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >> > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), >> > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> > www.williamdrake.org >> > *********************************************** >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You >> > received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >> > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 26 07:16:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:46:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54254B09.70906@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 September 2014 04:29 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 22 September 2014 09:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Parminder: >> >> How would you know? You’ve never been to any of these meetings and >> don’t track the processes. >> > > Neither have I been to any ITU meeting. So since you are laying down > the rules regarding who can speak about IG processes and who cannot, > you may want to be more precise and tell me how many meetings of any > IG forum one must attend before one can comment on it. > > As for following these meetings, the problem is not so much about > other people not following what is happening at ICANN (which > deliberately makes things difficult to follow which is one of their > main strategies of protecting and perpetuating themselves) , but those > who go to ICANN not following what is happening in the real world. > This is why they can cause such serious blunders as evident in the new > gTLD implementation where new forms of private regulatory mechanisms > are being set up in very partisan ways - like the one which will > regulate the use of .health gtld, and generic words belonging to the > whole English speaking community are allowed to be privatized in their > domain name version like .book and .beauty.... To compare the ICANN's multistakeholder model to government regulation, no trademark law will ever allow these words as trademarks, because of their generic nature.... So one can see who protects public interest better. ICANN doesn't care about general public rights to generic words of the language and allows their proprietization while typical trademark (written and administered by those bad governments) are designed not to allow such a thing to happen. When, for instance, Amazon gets the ownership of .book (as their exclusive gtld not available to others) they can legitimately parade and publicize the term '.book' as their own as they please, and with extended use, not only will that make an extremely unfair association between the word 'book' and amazon's business in books in people's mind, in time, they may also claim trademark rights over the word, with some legitimate grounds behind them.... Therefore, not only ICANN's legal regime is much worse that governmental regimes, it can and will be used to upstage the latter's good points.. parminder > To think that most people of the world want such things is > preposterous, but those involved with ICANN can make themselves > believe that this is indeed so. Get out of your insularity please. > There is a real world out there. And you are hurting its interests. > > > parminder >> >> What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of >> resignation >> (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html >> ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked >> below. What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of >> ICANN.... It is just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply >> not willing enough to speak about the emperor's clothes. But the >> charade cannot go on forever, and once it is behind us many involved >> people will look really bad. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 26 06:59:26 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:29:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> On Monday 22 September 2014 09:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder: > > How would you know? You’ve never been to any of these meetings and > don’t track the processes. > Neither have I been to any ITU meeting. So since you are laying down the rules regarding who can speak about IG processes and who cannot, you may want to be more precise and tell me how many meetings of any IG forum one must attend before one can comment on it. As for following these meetings, the problem is not so much about other people not following what is happening at ICANN (which deliberately makes things difficult to follow which is one of their main strategies of protecting and perpetuating themselves) , but those who go to ICANN not following what is happening in the real world. This is why they can cause such serious blunders as evident in the new gTLD implementation where new forms of private regulatory mechanisms are being set up in very partisan ways - like the one which will regulate the use of .health gtld, and generic words belonging to the whole English speaking community are allowed to be privatized in their domain name version like .book and .beauty.... To think that most people of the world want such things is preposterous, but those involved with ICANN can make themselves believe that this is indeed so. Get out of your insularity please. There is a real world out there. And you are hurting its interests. parminder > > What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of > resignation > (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html > ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked > below. What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of > ICANN.... It is just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply > not willing enough to speak about the emperor's clothes. But the > charade cannot go on forever, and once it is behind us many involved > people will look really bad. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 07:44:17 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 06:44:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <54254B09.70906@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54254B09.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 6:16 AM, parminder wrote: > > When, for instance, Amazon gets the ownership of .book (as their exclusive > gtld not available to others) they can legitimately parade and publicize the > term '.book' as their own as they please, and with extended use, not only > will that make an extremely unfair association between the word 'book' and > amazon's business in books in people's mind, in time, they may also claim > trademark rights over the word, with some legitimate grounds behind them.... > Therefore, not only ICANN's legal regime is much worse that governmental > regimes, it can and will be used to upstage the latter's good points.. Perhaps ParminderCAN tell us which words should be allowed instead of which strings he objects to, and the rules under which they are allowed, and who should be eligible to be the Registry Operator for those strings. We could call it the Parminder Applicant Guidebook or PAGB for short. > > What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of resignation > (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html > ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked below. > What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of ICANN.... It is > just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply not willing enough to > speak about the emperor's clothes. Once again, your cluelessness shines thru. The RIRs are NOT supported and fed by ICANN, in fact, the reverse is true. I too was a RIR Policy Working Group Chair and I realised that during slow times (few or no policy proposals on the table) that holding meetings was not a futile exercise, as having regular, coordinated processes are essential to PDPs even when there are no current policy proposals to discuss. ICANN ALWAYS has policy proposals to discuss, in fact there are too many to keep track of at the moment. If you were really concerned about affecting change in this area, ICANN folks are just now putting together a timetable for the next round. Now is not too early to get involved. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Sep 26 08:03:19 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:03:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54254B09.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 6:16 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > When, for instance, Amazon gets the ownership of .book (as their > exclusive > > gtld not available to others) they can legitimately parade and publicize > the > > term '.book' as their own as they please, and with extended use, not only > > will that make an extremely unfair association between the word 'book' > and > > amazon's business in books in people's mind, in time, they may also claim > > trademark rights over the word, with some legitimate grounds behind > them.... > > Therefore, not only ICANN's legal regime is much worse that governmental > > regimes, it can and will be used to upstage the latter's good points.. > > > Perhaps ParminderCAN tell us which words should be allowed instead of > which strings he objects to, and the rules under which they are > allowed, and who should be eligible to be the Registry Operator for > those strings. > > We could call it the Parminder Applicant Guidebook or PAGB for short. > *Ask WIPO * the world reference for trademarks . Louis - - - > > > > > What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of resignation > > ( > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html > > ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked below. > > What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of ICANN.... > It is > > just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply not willing enough to > > speak about the emperor's clothes. > > > Once again, your cluelessness shines thru. > > The RIRs are NOT supported and fed by ICANN, in fact, the reverse is > true. I too was a RIR Policy Working Group Chair and I realised that > during slow times (few or no policy proposals on the table) that > holding meetings was not a futile exercise, as having regular, > coordinated processes are essential to PDPs even when there are no > current policy proposals to discuss. > > ICANN ALWAYS has policy proposals to discuss, in fact there are too > many to keep track of at the moment. > > If you were really concerned about affecting change in this area, > ICANN folks are just now putting together a timetable for the next > round. Now is not too early to get involved. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 26 08:52:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:22:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54254B09.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <542561A0.4000204@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 September 2014 05:14 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 6:16 AM, parminder wrote: >> SNIP > > Perhaps ParminderCAN tell us which words should be allowed instead of > which strings he objects to, and the rules under which they are > allowed, and who should be eligible to be the Registry Operator for > those strings. > > We could call it the Parminder Applicant Guidebook or PAGB for short. Jokes apart, it is not that difficult to get the basic principles right. There exists a long tradition of evolving 'public interest' principles which is what 'political processes' are about, ideas that ICANN ists seem to simply abhor. They think that the world runs by technical systems and business contracts alone. It is not difficult to start building from the current body of public interest principles that pertain to allocation of any privileged use of any word, Louis having pointed to the internal law on trade marks as one such reference. The purpose of a specific governance system like ICANN is to fine tune larger public interest principles to a specific governance context, like allocation of gLTDs in this case. I could easily think of two principles that looks quite obvious with respect to the context we are discussing.. 1. Dont allocate any generic names for closed private use.... It is ok to have have open gTLDs using generic names. (Open gTLDs allow any applicant to get a sub doman on a first come first served basis. A closed gTLD like the proposed .book and .beauty gTLDs allows the owner to have only its own products use the domain names and disallow the general public.) 2. Generic names that clearly represent regulated sectors (in all countries) like health and education be allocated to an/ the legitimate global governance agency which can develop basic rules about how sub domains may be allocated Not rocket science, is it. But ICANN has a way of going into thousand circuitous process to reach a pre ordained position - which is to favour the domain industry, which btw have revolving doors with the domain governance system, and also fill its own coffers, a part of which money can then again be used to develop extensive obfuscating processes to give the pretence of participation but the final result always serving vested and status quo interests. Just to give one example of how jocular things are at ICANN... The independent expert felt that gTLDs like .book are not fine in his consideration, but that he is unable to do anything about it bec he can only object on community objection considerations but he is unable to see what would be the community that have special interest in the name 'book' - the world's English speaking community ?? - but that simple idea did not occur to him. parminder > > >> What has become of ICANN is best represented in the email of resignation >> (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2014/09/msg00049.html >> ) from the chair of one of APNIC's policy groups which is linked below. >> What has been said of APNIC is just many more times truer of ICANN.... It is >> just that ICANN supported and fed groups are simply not willing enough to >> speak about the emperor's clothes. > > Once again, your cluelessness shines thru. > > The RIRs are NOT supported and fed by ICANN, in fact, the reverse is > true. I too was a RIR Policy Working Group Chair and I realised that > during slow times (few or no policy proposals on the table) that > holding meetings was not a futile exercise, as having regular, > coordinated processes are essential to PDPs even when there are no > current policy proposals to discuss. > > ICANN ALWAYS has policy proposals to discuss, in fact there are too > many to keep track of at the moment. > > If you were really concerned about affecting change in this area, > ICANN folks are just now putting together a timetable for the next > round. Now is not too early to get involved. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 08:53:07 2014 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:53:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> References: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com> <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette Hello, hello to all, Here attachments recommendations of the two editions of the IGF Central Africa (http://it4all.org/fgi-ac/). Currently, ideas are brewing for ECCAS (Economic Community of Central Africa), in collaboration with the regional office of the ECA is committed to bring leadership to the organization of the IGF Central Africa . Since 2011, we have realized the problem with the institution that could have the powers of the organization like the AfIGF which is organized by the African Union with the technical collaboration of UNECA which houses the AfIGF secretariat in Addis Ababa. The Central Africa IGF secretariat is temporarily held by ANTIC ( www.antic.cm) in Cameroon but is not formally recognized by the governments of the countries of Central Africa even less by ECCAS. It is for this reason that in 2013 the CAFEC, in collaboration with local NGOs, hardly organized the 2013 edition. The 2014 edition still suffers from this problem and no country wants to get involved. I tried several times with the Ministry in charge of ICT and the regulatory authority. Apparently, the answer is neither yes nor no, but the question asked what gives credibility to this approach? Because, they say, globally it is the United Nations, the Africa level is the African Union and UNECA but regionally, which ???. This is the dilemma we face in Central Africa level. And it even has an impact on national IGF despite repeated pleas with organized as a basis the Tunis Agenda and organization of IGF worldwide. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2014-09-26 12:01 GMT+02:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : > This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record all > the recommendations related to IG that we make? > > Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ? > > E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not to > mention subregional ones. > > I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current > site already provides a space for all contributions into open consultations: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf > > Anriette > > > > On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: > > +1 > > Ephraim > > On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > +100 with one small addition > > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > > wrote: > > >> Dear all > >> > >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society > >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for > >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit > >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as > >> possible attend the December meetings. > >> > >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make > >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need > >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. > >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is > >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights > >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul. > >> > >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will > >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. > >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis > >> for submission. > >> > >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society > >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support > >> for the next IGF > >> > >> Also some specific things to focus on would be: > >> > >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback > >> on what worked what did not, etc. > >> > >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in > >> progress' which still has flaws in my view > >> > >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes > >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory > >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in > >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) > > > 4) Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial > > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is > > 'mature' enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be > > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to > > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and > > others. There are various ideas about how this might be done, and > > it'd be great to see some of them in submissions. > > > Best > > > Bill > >> > >> So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit > >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare > >> them. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> *Call for Input* > >> > >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* > >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting > >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including > >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written > >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an > >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 > >> December. Please send all contributions to > >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org > >> > . > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> . To > unsubscribe or change > >> your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > *********************************************** William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, > > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users > > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > > william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), > > wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), > > www.williamdrake.org > > > *********************************************** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: recommadation IGF 2012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 139541 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommandations IGF-AC, 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47313 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Fri Sep 26 13:49:28 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:49:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21541.42792.11386.462155@world.std.com> On September 26, 2014 at 16:29 parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) wrote: > As for following these meetings, the problem is not so much about other > people not following what is happening at ICANN (which deliberately > makes things difficult to follow which is one of their main strategies > of protecting and perpetuating themselves) , but those who go to ICANN > not following what is happening in the real world. This is why they can > cause such serious blunders as evident in the new gTLD implementation > where new forms of private regulatory mechanisms are being set up in > very partisan ways - like the one which will regulate the use of .health > gtld, and generic words belonging to the whole English speaking > community are allowed to be privatized in their domain name version like > .book and .beauty.... To think that most people of the world want such > things is preposterous, but those involved with ICANN can make > themselves believe that this is indeed so. Get out of your insularity > please. There is a real world out there. And you are hurting its interests. I don't know that closed gTLDs such as .BOOK or .BEAUTY or any other new gTLDs arose from any active policy judgement by ICANN, with some exceptions. They're the result of a more nihlistic application of free market mechanics: Let people apply for these new gTLDs and if they can get the application reasonably straight and meet the financial requirements including application fee then, barring competition for the same gTLD (resolved by other processes), they're in. Which is really very similar to how for example the .COM/.NET/.ORG spaces are run. Except the barrier to entry is much, much, lower for an SLD in those venerable gTLDs. In the far distant past there was some notion that .COM was for commercial entities, .ORG for not-for-profits or similar, non-commercial, and .NET for network infrastructure providers. It didn't last. So now we do see injected, from time to time, activist regulation -- someone gets excited by some aspect of a new GTLD such as .AMAZON (the company or the geographic feature?) and off we go. N.B. There's also a trademark aspect to this I'm skipping. Certainly they won't grant .SONY to anyone with a fist full of dollars so that's another restraint but it's almost tacit plus or minus some hard cases. Or an applicant for whatever reason has proposed that their nGTLD be self-regulated possibly with the help of regulatory authorities. Why did they do that? I don't know. There never seemed to be much requirement but I suppose if they wrote into their contract application that they would perform some sort of regulation of the use of the gTLD then that would give them some responsibility to follow through when the gTLD contract is awarded. We can guess! Probably either marketing, they want to assert to their audience that their gTLD is focused on a particular topic in some way, or perhaps some anticipation that their application might be rejected or otherwise run into trouble if they didn't propose some sort of self-regulation. It could be argued that the latter, anticipation of some unwritten requirement, was symptomatic of a mass neurosis. With some broad exceptions, of course, particularly for geographic (e.g., city) gTLDs or more generally community gTLDs where there really was an explicit requirement to show participation and support from that geographic entity or community such as endorsement by the city government (.PARIS, .NYC, ...) or continent in the case of .AFRICA. .GAY was a community participation gTLD. Or trademarks as I mentioned in passing earlier. Then some controversy arose over the idea of closed gTLDs such as Amazon, Inc controlling .BOOK presumably for their own marketing advantage. It was treated at first as if this possibility had never occurred to anyone involved in the process. The game had become one of money rather than policy (other than as I outlined) and voila entities with money showed up! We were shocked, shocked! This reminds me of the joke about how Boston's electrical utility company is only ever caught off-guard by two events: Winter And Summer. They don't seem to have caught on to the annual pattern. What I'd be more interested in is how these self-proposed and in some cases imposed covenants will be enforced, and to what extent? For example when some new gTLD owner finds there just isn't much market within their proposed regime -- put bluntly they're going broke due to lack of interest -- can they just re-focus? Change the proposed self-regulations? Or is there some process to petition ICANN for a contract variance? And what are the remedies for this sort of specific "breach" of self-regulation (where not granted), if it is a breach at all? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ekenyanito at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 14:29:48 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:29:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014 In-Reply-To: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> References: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com> <5425397B.7000007@apc.org> Message-ID: Hey Anriette, Great ideas, will be great to finally get the report for AfIGF and all sub regionals into one space, this will assist in providing more concrete outcomes. Currently working on looking into the AfIGFs but still waiting for 2014 report. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito Tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 On 26 September 2014 13:01, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record all > the recommendations related to IG that we make? > > Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ? > > E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not to > mention subregional ones. > > I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current > site already provides a space for all contributions into open consultations: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf > > Anriette > > > > On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: > > +1 > > Ephraim > > On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > +100 with one small addition > > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > > wrote: > > >> Dear all > >> > >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society > >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for > >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit > >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as > >> possible attend the December meetings. > >> > >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make > >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need > >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. > >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is > >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights > >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul. > >> > >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will > >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC. > >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis > >> for submission. > >> > >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society > >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support > >> for the next IGF > >> > >> Also some specific things to focus on would be: > >> > >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback > >> on what worked what did not, etc. > >> > >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in > >> progress' which still has flaws in my view > >> > >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes > >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory > >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in > >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) > > > 4) Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial > > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is > > ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be > > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to > > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and > > others. There are various ideas about how this might be done, and > > it’d be great to see some of them in submissions. > > > Best > > > Bill > >> > >> So just a few thoughts. If CS groups are going to submit > >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare > >> them. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> *Call for Input* > >> > >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* > >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting > >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including > >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written > >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an > >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 > >> December. Please send all contributions to > >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org > >> > . > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> . To > unsubscribe or change > >> your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > *********************************************** William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, > > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users > > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > > william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), > > wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), > > www.williamdrake.org > > > *********************************************** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 16:55:37 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:55:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help wondering whether there should be greater awareness done on the roles of stakeholders within the ecosystem. The content of the discussions in relation to domain name racket I could not follow through properly but whilst people are still putting all their eggs in the domain name basket with the gTLD process, hardly anyone talks about the dotless domains and the implication for the current value of the domain name. Can the domain name and dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN in terms of transition? Is it inevitable that the world will shift from domains to more dotless domains or are dotless domains are just a fly by night. Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being open to hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built in mechanisms for input into various processes. ITU on the other hand remains a closed trunk available only to Governments, Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can afford it, and they have no capacity to be flexible to absorb civil society. In terms of accountability, ICANN leads as all its reports are published open and online and available for easy access by anyone except *some* of the SSAC reports. However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest UN organisation can make this resistant to change to be more relevant with the dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work building and developing toolkits for diverse initiatives within the ICT space and should be commended. The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various speeches just as ICANN does for some time now. However, despite my preferences, I can say that both organisations have greater room for even more improvement. However, to do that we as civil society must first get our act together and figure out architecturally, the kind of changes we would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify the voice of the common man and the inclusion of *ALL* our voices. At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can treat and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 26 21:04:33 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:34:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> Whether ICANN should continue with domain name functions or whether ITU should take them over is a bit of a self-serving strawman argument. I have not seen any serious proposal with any serious backing in this regard. What is often sought however by developing countries, with serious proposals on the table as well, is to subject ICANN to a genuinely international oversight mechanism which is embedded in international law and its authority. parminder On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help > wondering whether there should be greater awareness done on the roles > of stakeholders within the ecosystem. The content of the discussions > in relation to domain name racket I could not follow through properly > but whilst people are still putting all their eggs in the domain name > basket with the gTLD process, hardly anyone talks about the dotless > domains and the implication for the current value of the domain name. > Can the domain name and dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN > in terms of transition? Is it inevitable that the world will shift > from domains to more dotless domains or are dotless domains are just a > fly by night. > > Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being open to > hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built in mechanisms > for input into various processes. ITU on the other hand remains a > closed trunk available only to Governments, Regulators and ICT Private > Sector who can afford it, and they have no capacity to be flexible to > absorb civil society. In terms of accountability, ICANN leads as all > its reports are published open and online and available for easy > access by anyone except /some/ of the SSAC reports. > > However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest UN > organisation can make this resistant to change to be more relevant > with the dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work building and > developing toolkits for diverse initiatives within the ICT space and > should be commended. > > The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various > speeches just as ICANN does for some time now. > > However, despite my preferences, I can say that both organisations > have greater room for even more improvement. However, to do that we as > civil society must first get our act together and figure out > architecturally, the kind of changes we would like to see happening in > the ecosystem to amplify the voice of the common man and the inclusion > of *ALL* our voices. > > At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can treat > and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct roles and > mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to want to > fit square pegs in round holes. > > :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 26 21:11:23 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:41:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <24E457AD-DA77-491E-BDD0-56F68151B61D@hserus.net> That is a rather overly clever restatement of "should ICANN's governance remain multistakeholder with GAC input, or should ITU or an ITU mandated multilateral body, have oversight?" --srs (iPad) > On 27-Sep-2014, at 06:34, parminder wrote: > > Whether ICANN should continue with domain name functions or whether ITU should take them over is a bit of a self-serving strawman argument. I have not seen any serious proposal with any serious backing in this regard. What is often sought however by developing countries, with serious proposals on the table as well, is to subject ICANN to a genuinely international oversight mechanism which is embedded in international law and its authority. > > parminder > > >> On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help wondering whether there should be greater awareness done on the roles of stakeholders within the ecosystem. The content of the discussions in relation to domain name racket I could not follow through properly but whilst people are still putting all their eggs in the domain name basket with the gTLD process, hardly anyone talks about the dotless domains and the implication for the current value of the domain name. Can the domain name and dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN in terms of transition? Is it inevitable that the world will shift from domains to more dotless domains or are dotless domains are just a fly by night. >> >> Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being open to hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built in mechanisms for input into various processes. ITU on the other hand remains a closed trunk available only to Governments, Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can afford it, and they have no capacity to be flexible to absorb civil society. In terms of accountability, ICANN leads as all its reports are published open and online and available for easy access by anyone except some of the SSAC reports. >> >> However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest UN organisation can make this resistant to change to be more relevant with the dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work building and developing toolkits for diverse initiatives within the ICT space and should be commended. >> >> The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various speeches just as ICANN does for some time now. >> >> However, despite my preferences, I can say that both organisations have greater room for even more improvement. However, to do that we as civil society must first get our act together and figure out architecturally, the kind of changes we would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify the voice of the common man and the inclusion of ALL our voices. >> >> At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can treat and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes. >> >> :) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 26 21:20:59 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:50:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <21541.42792.11386.462155@world.std.com> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <21541.42792.11386.462155@world.std.com> Message-ID: <542610FB.6030205@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 September 2014 11:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > SNIP > > I don't know that closed gTLDs such as .BOOK or .BEAUTY or any other > new gTLDs arose from any active policy judgement by ICANN, with some > exceptions. Are you saying ICANN is not doing domain name policy development? Then what is it doing. We hear so much about it all the time, and it spends so much public money. > > They're the result of a more nihlistic application of free market > mechanics: Exactly. An ideology that was embedded by the US gov in the Internet's formative policy document (the framework of global commerce in 1997 for instance) and all the shenanigans at ICANN, very expensive ones at that, are simply playing out the application of that unilaterally decided ideology and its contextual principles... So much so for global participaiton in technical and logical system administration of ICANN. And this is not obvious only to those who wish not to see it for whatever reasons. > Let people apply for these new gTLDs and if they can get > the application reasonably straight and meet the financial > requirements including application fee then, barring competition for > the same gTLD (resolved by other processes), they're in. Alas! the free market and individual responsibility doctrines ! Not something most of the world was a part of deciding as apply to one of its most critical resources, the Internet. But this is participation and democracy for you. parminder > > Which is really very similar to how for example the .COM/.NET/.ORG > spaces are run. Except the barrier to entry is much, much, lower for > an SLD in those venerable gTLDs. > > In the far distant past there was some notion that .COM was for > commercial entities, .ORG for not-for-profits or similar, > non-commercial, and .NET for network infrastructure providers. > > It didn't last. > > So now we do see injected, from time to time, activist regulation -- > someone gets excited by some aspect of a new GTLD such as .AMAZON (the > company or the geographic feature?) and off we go. > > N.B. There's also a trademark aspect to this I'm skipping. Certainly > they won't grant .SONY to anyone with a fist full of dollars so > that's another restraint but it's almost tacit plus or minus some > hard cases. > > Or an applicant for whatever reason has proposed that their nGTLD be > self-regulated possibly with the help of regulatory authorities. > > Why did they do that? I don't know. > > There never seemed to be much requirement but I suppose if they wrote > into their contract application that they would perform some sort of > regulation of the use of the gTLD then that would give them some > responsibility to follow through when the gTLD contract is awarded. > > We can guess! Probably either marketing, they want to assert to their > audience that their gTLD is focused on a particular topic in some way, > or perhaps some anticipation that their application might be rejected > or otherwise run into trouble if they didn't propose some sort of > self-regulation. > > It could be argued that the latter, anticipation of some unwritten > requirement, was symptomatic of a mass neurosis. > > With some broad exceptions, of course, particularly for geographic > (e.g., city) gTLDs or more generally community gTLDs where there > really was an explicit requirement to show participation and support > from that geographic entity or community such as endorsement by the > city government (.PARIS, .NYC, ...) or continent in the case of > .AFRICA. .GAY was a community participation gTLD. Or trademarks as I > mentioned in passing earlier. > > Then some controversy arose over the idea of closed gTLDs such as > Amazon, Inc controlling .BOOK presumably for their own marketing > advantage. It was treated at first as if this possibility had never > occurred to anyone involved in the process. > > The game had become one of money rather than policy (other than as I > outlined) and voila entities with money showed up! We were shocked, > shocked! > > This reminds me of the joke about how Boston's electrical utility > company is only ever caught off-guard by two events: Winter And > Summer. They don't seem to have caught on to the annual pattern. > > What I'd be more interested in is how these self-proposed and in some > cases imposed covenants will be enforced, and to what extent? > > For example when some new gTLD owner finds there just isn't much > market within their proposed regime -- put bluntly they're going broke > due to lack of interest -- can they just re-focus? Change the proposed > self-regulations? Or is there some process to petition ICANN for a > contract variance? And what are the remedies for this sort of specific > "breach" of self-regulation (where not granted), if it is a breach at > all? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Sep 27 05:48:03 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:48:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:04 PM, parminder wrote: > Whether ICANN should continue with domain name functions or whether ITU > should take them over is a bit of a self-serving strawman argument. > I never made this assertion. What I said was..."we have to come to the realisation that we can treat and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes". ITU is not competent to deal with domain names. > I have not seen any serious proposal with any serious backing in this > regard. > Neither have I. > What is often sought however by developing countries, with serious > proposals on the table as well, is to subject ICANN to a genuinely > international oversight mechanism which is embedded in international law > and its authority. > > I would be curious to see which developing countries make this assertion. >From my reading of things it is not countries but views of certain groups and can hardly be said to be country positions. > parminder > > > On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help wondering > whether there should be greater awareness done on the roles of stakeholders > within the ecosystem. The content of the discussions in relation to domain > name racket I could not follow through properly but whilst people are still > putting all their eggs in the domain name basket with the gTLD process, > hardly anyone talks about the dotless domains and the implication for the > current value of the domain name. Can the domain name and dotless domain > name be likened to PSTN and NGN in terms of transition? Is it inevitable > that the world will shift from domains to more dotless domains or are > dotless domains are just a fly by night. > > Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being open to > hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built in mechanisms for > input into various processes. ITU on the other hand remains a closed trunk > available only to Governments, Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can > afford it, and they have no capacity to be flexible to absorb civil > society. In terms of accountability, ICANN leads as all its reports are > published open and online and available for easy access by anyone except > *some* of the SSAC reports. > > However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest UN > organisation can make this resistant to change to be more relevant with the > dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work building and developing > toolkits for diverse initiatives within the ICT space and should be > commended. > > The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various speeches > just as ICANN does for some time now. > > However, despite my preferences, I can say that both organisations have > greater room for even more improvement. However, to do that we as civil > society must first get our act together and figure out architecturally, the > kind of changes we would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify > the voice of the common man and the inclusion of *ALL* our voices. > > At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can treat > and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct roles and > mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to want to fit > square pegs in round holes. > > :) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 27 10:15:24 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:45:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5426C67C.8050105@itforchange.net> On Saturday 27 September 2014 03:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:04 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Whether ICANN should continue with domain name functions or > whether ITU should take them over is a bit of a self-serving > strawman argument. > > > I never made this assertion. > > What I said was..."we have to come to the realisation that we can > treat and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct > roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to > want to fit square pegs in round holes". ITU is not competent to deal > with domain names. Nobody is seriously asking for that is what I am saying. > > I have not seen any serious proposal with any serious backing in > this regard. > > > Neither have I. Then, the "ITU is not competent to deal with domain names" assertion is a response to a strawman argument. > > What is often sought however by developing countries, with serious > proposals on the table as well, is to subject ICANN to a genuinely > international oversight mechanism which is embedded in > international law and its authority. > > I would be curious to see which developing countries make this assertion. See enclosed response from India to ICANN's process of collection of views on the IANA transition process. It say clearly that any transition arrangement should "have a proper international legislative authority". And of course India earlier made the CIRP proposal which sought inter-gov oversight of ICANN. Dont know why continued ignorance should be professed about this and many other stated positions from other developing countries. > From my reading of things it is not countries but views of certain > groups and can hardly be said to be country positions. If the position of the Just Net Coalition is being meant here, it is that yes, ICANN oversight mechanism should have internal legal backing/ authority, but it is not necessary that the precise oversight mechanism be inter-gov in the UN sense. To that extent it is different from India's position. parminder > > parminder > > > On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help >> wondering whether there should be greater awareness done on the >> roles of stakeholders within the ecosystem. The content of the >> discussions in relation to domain name racket I could not follow >> through properly but whilst people are still putting all their >> eggs in the domain name basket with the gTLD process, hardly >> anyone talks about the dotless domains and the implication for >> the current value of the domain name. Can the domain name and >> dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN in terms of >> transition? Is it inevitable that the world will shift from >> domains to more dotless domains or are dotless domains are just a >> fly by night. >> >> Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being open >> to hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built in >> mechanisms for input into various processes. ITU on the other >> hand remains a closed trunk available only to Governments, >> Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can afford it, and they >> have no capacity to be flexible to absorb civil society. In terms >> of accountability, ICANN leads as all its reports are published >> open and online and available for easy access by anyone except >> /some/ of the SSAC reports. >> >> However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest UN >> organisation can make this resistant to change to be more >> relevant with the dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work >> building and developing toolkits for diverse initiatives within >> the ICT space and should be commended. >> >> The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various >> speeches just as ICANN does for some time now. >> >> However, despite my preferences, I can say that both >> organisations have greater room for even more improvement. >> However, to do that we as civil society must first get our act >> together and figure out architecturally, the kind of changes we >> would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify the voice >> of the common man and the inclusion of *ALL* our voices. >> >> At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can >> treat and respect individual organisations as unique with >> distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less >> likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes. >> >> :) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: India's response to IANA transition process.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 269436 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 27 10:24:40 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:54:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <5426C67C.8050105@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> <5426C67C.8050105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5426C8A8.70704@itforchange.net> On Saturday 27 September 2014 07:45 PM, parminder wrote: > snip >> >> >> I would be curious to see which developing countries make this >> assertion. > > See enclosed response from India to ICANN's process of collection of > views on the IANA transition process. It say clearly that any > transition arrangement should "have a proper international legislative > authority". And of course India earlier made the CIRP proposal which > sought inter-gov oversight of ICANN. Dont know why continued ignorance > should be professed about this and many other stated positions from > other developing countries. > > >> From my reading of things it is not countries but views of certain >> groups and can hardly be said to be country positions. > > If the position of the Just Net Coalition > > is being meant here, it is that yes, ICANN oversight mechanism should > have internal legal backing/ authority, sorry, meant "international legal backing/ authority" > but it is not necessary that the precise oversight mechanism be > inter-gov in the UN sense. To that extent it is different from India's > position. > > parminder >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM, Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help >>> wondering whether there should be greater awareness done on the >>> roles of stakeholders within the ecosystem. The content of the >>> discussions in relation to domain name racket I could not follow >>> through properly but whilst people are still putting all their >>> eggs in the domain name basket with the gTLD process, hardly >>> anyone talks about the dotless domains and the implication for >>> the current value of the domain name. Can the domain name and >>> dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN in terms of >>> transition? Is it inevitable that the world will shift from >>> domains to more dotless domains or are dotless domains are just >>> a fly by night. >>> >>> Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being >>> open to hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built >>> in mechanisms for input into various processes. ITU on the other >>> hand remains a closed trunk available only to Governments, >>> Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can afford it, and they >>> have no capacity to be flexible to absorb civil society. In >>> terms of accountability, ICANN leads as all its reports are >>> published open and online and available for easy access by >>> anyone except /some/ of the SSAC reports. >>> >>> However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest >>> UN organisation can make this resistant to change to be more >>> relevant with the dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work >>> building and developing toolkits for diverse initiatives within >>> the ICT space and should be commended. >>> >>> The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various >>> speeches just as ICANN does for some time now. >>> >>> However, despite my preferences, I can say that both >>> organisations have greater room for even more improvement. >>> However, to do that we as civil society must first get our act >>> together and figure out architecturally, the kind of changes we >>> would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify the >>> voice of the common man and the inclusion of *ALL* our voices. >>> >>> At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can >>> treat and respect individual organisations as unique with >>> distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less >>> likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes. >>> >>> :) >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Sep 27 11:19:23 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 20:49:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <5426C67C.8050105@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <54260D21.1020400@itforchange.net> <5426C67C.8050105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <148b7b1d4f0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> The India response has been quite different based on whether it was the former foreign ministry making a submission in favor of multilateral groupings or the former IT and telecom ministry under kapil sibal which was articulately in favor of multistakeholder systems There is a new government since those days so we still have to see how this works out. Right wing and not particularly tolerant of free speech unless it is their own supporters so.. On 27 September 2014 7:49:59 pm parminder wrote: > On Saturday 27 September 2014 03:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:04 PM, parminder > > wrote: > > > > Whether ICANN should continue with domain name functions or > > whether ITU should take them over is a bit of a self-serving > > strawman argument. > > > > > > I never made this assertion. > > > > What I said was..."we have to come to the realisation that we can > > treat and respect individual organisations as unique with distinct > > roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less likely to try to > > want to fit square pegs in round holes". ITU is not competent to deal > > with domain names. > > Nobody is seriously asking for that is what I am saying. > > > > I have not seen any serious proposal with any serious backing in > > this regard. > > > > > > Neither have I. > > Then, the "ITU is not competent to deal with domain names" assertion is > a response to a strawman argument. > > > > What is often sought however by developing countries, with serious > > proposals on the table as well, is to subject ICANN to a genuinely > > international oversight mechanism which is embedded in > > international law and its authority. > > > > I would be curious to see which developing countries make this assertion. > > See enclosed response from India to ICANN's process of collection of > views on the IANA transition process. It say clearly that any transition > arrangement should "have a proper international legislative authority". > And of course India earlier made the CIRP proposal which sought > inter-gov oversight of ICANN. Dont know why continued ignorance should > be professed about this and many other stated positions from other > developing countries. > > > > From my reading of things it is not countries but views of certain > > groups and can hardly be said to be country positions. > > If the position of the Just Net Coalition > > is being meant here, it is that yes, ICANN oversight mechanism should > have internal legal backing/ authority, but it is not necessary that the > precise oversight mechanism be inter-gov in the UN sense. To that extent > it is different from India's position. > > parminder > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM, Salanieta T. > > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> As I read through all the email discussions, I could not help > >> wondering whether there should be greater awareness done on the > >> roles of stakeholders within the ecosystem. The content of the > >> discussions in relation to domain name racket I could not follow > >> through properly but whilst people are still putting all their > >> eggs in the domain name basket with the gTLD process, hardly > >> anyone talks about the dotless domains and the implication for > >> the current value of the domain name. Can the domain name and > >> dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN in terms of > >> transition? Is it inevitable that the world will shift from > >> domains to more dotless domains or are dotless domains are just a > >> fly by night. > >> > >> Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being open > >> to hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has built in > >> mechanisms for input into various processes. ITU on the other > >> hand remains a closed trunk available only to Governments, > >> Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can afford it, and they > >> have no capacity to be flexible to absorb civil society. In terms > >> of accountability, ICANN leads as all its reports are published > >> open and online and available for easy access by anyone except > >> /some/ of the SSAC reports. > >> > >> However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the oldest UN > >> organisation can make this resistant to change to be more > >> relevant with the dynamics of time. ITU has done fantastic work > >> building and developing toolkits for diverse initiatives within > >> the ICT space and should be commended. > >> > >> The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their various > >> speeches just as ICANN does for some time now. > >> > >> However, despite my preferences, I can say that both > >> organisations have greater room for even more improvement. > >> However, to do that we as civil society must first get our act > >> together and figure out architecturally, the kind of changes we > >> would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify the voice > >> of the common man and the inclusion of *ALL* our voices. > >> > >> At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that we can > >> treat and respect individual organisations as unique with > >> distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us less > >> likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes. > >> > >> :) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Sep 27 16:20:48 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:20:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on In-Reply-To: <542610FB.6030205@itforchange.net> References: <541AD2AC.6060803@gmx.net> <541AD809.8060602@itforchange.net> <541ADED4.8040107@itforchange.net> <541B9540.9030203@gmx.net> <541D77D0.20206@itforchange.net> <29acce67b48b4f078707bd2e4e8f3317@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5425470E.2060603@itforchange.net> <21541.42792.11386.462155@world.std.com> <542610FB.6030205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21543.7200.318202.155155@world.std.com> On September 27, 2014 at 06:50 parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) wrote: > > On Friday 26 September 2014 11:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > SNIP > > > > I don't know that closed gTLDs such as .BOOK or .BEAUTY or any other > > new gTLDs arose from any active policy judgement by ICANN, with some > > exceptions. > > Are you saying ICANN is not doing domain name policy development? Then > what is it doing. We hear so much about it all the time, and it spends > so much public money. Um, no, but I think you get my point next...(but I get the rhetorical quality.) > > They're the result of a more nihlistic application of free market > > mechanics: > > Exactly. An ideology that was embedded by the US gov in the Internet's > formative policy document (the framework of global commerce > in 1997 for > instance) and all the shenanigans at ICANN, very expensive ones at that, > are simply playing out the application of that unilaterally decided > ideology and its contextual principles... So much so for global > participaiton in technical and logical system administration of ICANN. > And this is not obvious only to those who wish not to see it for > whatever reasons. We all like to imagine things are more principled then they actually are. ...I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me. I have seen them riding seaward on the waves Combing the white hair of the waves blown back When the wind blows the water white and black. We have lingered in the chambers of the sea By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown Till human voices wake us, and we drown. -- Lovesong of J Alfred Prufrock, TS Eliot -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 28 02:34:22 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:04:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not Message-ID: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about, and it still does not even talk about the free run that global Internet monopolies seeks. No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up, but many of us are all just too eager to believe. (Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US corporations have no real interest in it.) In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic Commerce that had been developed by the UN Commission on International Trade Law. In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is still the omnibus law in India governing electronic transactions, makes reference to this Model Law in its preamble. Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious question for me? Please, I am serious. But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments to take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its political and corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from where the money flows?). We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality. But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot of resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in Busan in Korea has already started. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/ ). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 28 02:57:14 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:27:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> An utterly disingenuous take on a shallow article Also who is actually paying the various people in the multistakeholder community? You too are a stakeholder and doubtless the money you spend on airfare to various igov events doesn't materialize from thin air So what is the objection here? On 28 September 2014 12:05:02 pm parminder wrote: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html > > This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about, and > it still does not even talk about the free run that global Internet > monopolies seeks. > > No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up, but > many of us are all just too eager to believe. > > (Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US > corporations have no real interest in it.) > > In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic Commerce > that had been developed by the UN Commission on International Trade Law. > In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is still the omnibus law in India > governing electronic transactions, makes reference to this Model Law in > its preamble. > > Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not > discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication > and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious question > for me? Please, I am serious. > > But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments to > take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And so > many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its political and > corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from where the money flows?). > > We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on IP > based telecommunications, and on net neutrality. > > But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot of > resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in Busan in > Korea has already started. ( > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/ > ). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical > organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel > pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made. > > parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 28 04:59:53 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:29:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> On Sunday 28 September 2014 12:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > An utterly disingenuous take on a shallow article > > Also who is actually paying the various people in the multistakeholder > community? > > You too are a stakeholder and doubtless the money you spend on airfare > to various igov events doesn't materialize from thin air > The only time I will post to this particular post-er - simply bec this is a matter of public accountability, and all kinds make the public which however does not reduce the accountability. All of mine and IT for Change's funding are on our website (www.ITforChange.net , see annual reports) , we also provide a 'your right to know' button which encourages anyone to ask us questions about us which we promise to respond to in 15 days. We think such transparency and accountability is basic to civil society and those who are not ready to do so have no right to claim to be working for public interest. (Except in the extreme cases when such transparency would hurt the particular public interest that any group works for, which is rare, and the exception cannot be extended to be the rule. The rule is transparency.) Time and again we have encouraged all civil society individuals and groups in the (highly political) IG space to do the same, but got little response, sometime even aggressively negative response. This was one of the main reason of estrangement of some people with bestbits group's leadership, but people were willing to make members unhappy and decrease their engagement then take up the issue of funding transparency. parminder > So what is the objection here? > > On 28 September 2014 12:05:02 pm parminder > wrote: > >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html >> >> This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about, >> and it still does not even talk about the free run that global >> Internet monopolies seeks. >> >> No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up, >> but many of us are all just too eager to believe. >> >> (Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US >> corporations have no real interest in it.) >> >> In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic >> Commerce that had been developed by the UN Commission on >> International Trade Law. In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is >> still the omnibus law in India governing electronic transactions, >> makes reference to this Model Law in its preamble. >> >> Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not >> discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication >> and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious >> question for me? Please, I am serious. >> >> But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments >> to take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And >> so many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its >> political and corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from >> where the money flows?). >> >> We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on >> IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality. >> >> But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot >> of resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in >> Busan in Korea has already started. ( >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/ >> ). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical >> organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel >> pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made. >> >> parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 28 05:34:14 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:04:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Correct. Just pointing out that hardly anyone attends ig events from their personal fortune. You don't either, as you say. Several of those people you're disparaging have a well earned and established reputation for independence and specifically don't speak for the parties that fund them Your claiming that such people - multistakeholder community as you so dismissively call them - are paid stooges - is flat out wrong. Holier than though. They operate under the very same funding model your organization does, regardless of whether they are part of the vast majority that disagrees with you. On 28 September 2014 2:30:06 pm parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 28 September 2014 12:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > An utterly disingenuous take on a shallow article > > > > Also who is actually paying the various people in the multistakeholder > > community? > > > > You too are a stakeholder and doubtless the money you spend on airfare > > to various igov events doesn't materialize from thin air > > > > The only time I will post to this particular post-er - simply bec this > is a matter of public accountability, and all kinds make the public > which however does not reduce the accountability. > > All of mine and IT for Change's funding are on our website > (www.ITforChange.net , see annual reports) , we also provide a 'your > right to know' button which encourages anyone to ask us questions about > us which we promise to respond to in 15 days. We think such transparency > and accountability is basic to civil society and those who are not ready > to do so have no right to claim to be working for public interest. > (Except in the extreme cases when such transparency would hurt the > particular public interest that any group works for, which is rare, and > the exception cannot be extended to be the rule. The rule is transparency.) > Time and again we have encouraged all civil society individuals and > groups in the (highly political) IG space to do the same, but got little > response, sometime even aggressively negative response. This was one of > the main reason of estrangement of some people with bestbits group's > leadership, but people were willing to make members unhappy and decrease > their engagement then take up the issue of funding transparency. > > parminder > > > > So what is the objection here? > > > > On 28 September 2014 12:05:02 pm parminder > > wrote: > > > >> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html > >> > >> This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about, > >> and it still does not even talk about the free run that global > >> Internet monopolies seeks. > >> > >> No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up, > >> but many of us are all just too eager to believe. > >> > >> (Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US > >> corporations have no real interest in it.) > >> > >> In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic > >> Commerce that had been developed by the UN Commission on > >> International Trade Law. In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is > >> still the omnibus law in India governing electronic transactions, > >> makes reference to this Model Law in its preamble. > >> > >> Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not > >> discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication > >> and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious > >> question for me? Please, I am serious. > >> > >> But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments > >> to take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And > >> so many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its > >> political and corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from > >> where the money flows?). > >> > >> We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on > >> IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality. > >> > >> But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot > >> of resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in > >> Busan in Korea has already started. ( > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/ > >> ). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical > >> organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel > >> pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made. > >> > >> parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sun Sep 28 14:30:29 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:30:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> If we just equate funding with funding then, sure, one can make the argument that with few exceptions people are funded to participate by some method, often other than their own pocket. I don't know IGF, never been to a meeting. Been to quite a few ICANN meetings however. I think it's safe to say many on this list know me, in some cases quite well and for many years, decades even. My take is that this is a misleading equation. By and large ICANN meetings (and processes) are heavily dominated by people representing organizations (companies) with a vested interest in the outcome. Specifically registries, registrars, and people who make their living from the same such as the various lawyers and consultants. To my observation I don't see how you avoid this in a so-called multi-stakeholder model. ICANN certainly hasn't, quite the opposite. Almost the entire working agenda seems to be dominated by registry/registrar issues. To the point that even sessions etc which might on first glance appear to be focused on other issues in fact are dominated by registry/registrar issues. For example as an ISP I would drop in on the single ISP session to find they are primarily (that's a nice way of saying "only") talking about issues such as website take-downs for trademark/copyright violations. That does affect them but for example what about the IPv4/IPv6 transition? Or network neutrality? Or policy issues relating to CGN? Security and integrity issues? I don't think I've ever seen more than a momentary nod to any of those topics. One meeting in Brussels was completely taken up by how to fill in the new travel expense forms, or at least I left after 45 minutes of the hour devoted to that topic since I don't get travel expenses. Yes there are a few activities which are exceptions and no doubt in a defensive context they would be marched out much like the tardy drunken husband showing he did in fact pick up milk & eggs as promised. I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how it can lead to anything but what I describe. I'm sure this won't make me popular in some circles but at some point someone has to ask whether they are hallucinating or is the emperor in fact naked? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 20:16:17 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:46:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> Message-ID: <0f3e01cfdb7a$9c9b7300$d5d25900$@gmail.com> +1 M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Barry Shein Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not If we just equate funding with funding then, sure, one can make the argument that with few exceptions people are funded to participate by some method, often other than their own pocket. I don't know IGF, never been to a meeting. Been to quite a few ICANN meetings however. I think it's safe to say many on this list know me, in some cases quite well and for many years, decades even. My take is that this is a misleading equation. By and large ICANN meetings (and processes) are heavily dominated by people representing organizations (companies) with a vested interest in the outcome. Specifically registries, registrars, and people who make their living from the same such as the various lawyers and consultants. To my observation I don't see how you avoid this in a so-called multi-stakeholder model. ICANN certainly hasn't, quite the opposite. Almost the entire working agenda seems to be dominated by registry/registrar issues. To the point that even sessions etc which might on first glance appear to be focused on other issues in fact are dominated by registry/registrar issues. For example as an ISP I would drop in on the single ISP session to find they are primarily (that's a nice way of saying "only") talking about issues such as website take-downs for trademark/copyright violations. That does affect them but for example what about the IPv4/IPv6 transition? Or network neutrality? Or policy issues relating to CGN? Security and integrity issues? I don't think I've ever seen more than a momentary nod to any of those topics. One meeting in Brussels was completely taken up by how to fill in the new travel expense forms, or at least I left after 45 minutes of the hour devoted to that topic since I don't get travel expenses. Yes there are a few activities which are exceptions and no doubt in a defensive context they would be marched out much like the tardy drunken husband showing he did in fact pick up milk & eggs as promised. I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how it can lead to anything but what I describe. I'm sure this won't make me popular in some circles but at some point someone has to ask whether they are hallucinating or is the emperor in fact naked? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 28 21:20:42 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:50:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> Message-ID: <740DD6A1-1A16-4384-9AAF-0C9CE82B8675@hserus.net> When you're funded and represent yourself as an independent or as a rep of a civil society group, you do have to draw a "chinese wall" at least, between your funding sources and your opinions. Or if you're there to represent the org that funds you, you need to say so. I hardly ever see employees of registries or registrars claiming that they don't represent and speak for their employers. I know several independents who have corporate or industry group funding but still do retain their independence. Parminder appears to be implying that there's no such thing and everybody (except him and a chosen few) are paid stooges of various unnamed corporations. --srs (iPad) > On 29-Sep-2014, at 00:00, Barry Shein wrote: > > > If we just equate funding with funding then, sure, one can make the > argument that with few exceptions people are funded to participate by > some method, often other than their own pocket. > > I don't know IGF, never been to a meeting. Been to quite a few ICANN > meetings however. I think it's safe to say many on this list know me, > in some cases quite well and for many years, decades even. > > My take is that this is a misleading equation. > > By and large ICANN meetings (and processes) are heavily dominated by > people representing organizations (companies) with a vested interest > in the outcome. > > Specifically registries, registrars, and people who make their living > from the same such as the various lawyers and consultants. > > To my observation I don't see how you avoid this in a so-called > multi-stakeholder model. ICANN certainly hasn't, quite the opposite. > > Almost the entire working agenda seems to be dominated by > registry/registrar issues. To the point that even sessions etc which > might on first glance appear to be focused on other issues in fact are > dominated by registry/registrar issues. > > For example as an ISP I would drop in on the single ISP session to > find they are primarily (that's a nice way of saying "only") talking > about issues such as website take-downs for trademark/copyright > violations. That does affect them but for example what about the > IPv4/IPv6 transition? Or network neutrality? Or policy issues > relating to CGN? Security and integrity issues? I don't think I've > ever seen more than a momentary nod to any of those topics. One > meeting in Brussels was completely taken up by how to fill in the new > travel expense forms, or at least I left after 45 minutes of the hour > devoted to that topic since I don't get travel expenses. > > Yes there are a few activities which are exceptions and no doubt in a > defensive context they would be marched out much like the tardy > drunken husband showing he did in fact pick up milk & eggs as > promised. > > I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how it > can lead to anything but what I describe. > > I'm sure this won't make me popular in some circles but at some point > someone has to ask whether they are hallucinating or is the emperor in > fact naked? > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Mon Sep 29 09:28:10 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:28:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] [IWSAC 2014] Deadline Approaching: September 30, 2014 Message-ID: <030801cfdbe9$36c7f250$a457d6f0$@unimi.it> ***Deadline Approaching: September 30, 2014*** [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************** SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURITY ASSURANCE IN THE CLOUD (IWSAC 2014) Held in conjunction with the 10th International Conference on Signal Image Technology & Internet Based Systems (SITIS 2014) One day between November 23-27, 2014, Marrakech, Morocco Web site: http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014 IWSAC 2014 BACKGROUND AND GOALS The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the Cloud computing paradigm provides a new environment fostering the integration of services located within company boundaries with those in the Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business processes and applications via runtime composition of services made available in the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and threats, and requires re-thinking of current assurance, development, testing, and verification methodologies. In particular, security assurance in the cloud is becoming a pressing need to increase the confidence of the cloud actors that the cloud and its services are behaving as expected, and requires novel approaches addressing SOA and cloud peculiarities. IWSAC 2014 is the continuation of the International Workshop on Securing Services on the Cloud, held in September 2011, Milan, Italy. It aims to address the security assurance issues related to the deployment of services in the Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on traditional security solutions for software and network systems. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security and assurance of services implemented in the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Authentication and access control in the cloud * Challenges in moving critical systems to the cloud * Cloud accountability * Cloud audit * Cloud compliance * Cloud certification * Cloud transparency, introspection, and outrospection * Cybersecurity in the cloud * Data security and privacy in the Cloud * Information assurance and trust management * Intrusion detection in the Cloud * Security assurance in the cloud * Security and assurance protocols in the Cloud * Service level agreements * Service procurement in the cloud * Service verification in critical cloud services * Test-based and monitoring-based verification of cloud services IMPORTANT DATES EXTENDED Paper submission due: September 30, 2014 (11:59 PM American Samoa time) *FIRM* Notification to authors: October 9, 2014 Camera-ready due: October 15, 2014 Registration due: October 19, 2014 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop with proceedings. Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and must follow the IEEE double columns publication format available at - [Microsoft Word DOC] ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc - [LaTex Formatting Macros] ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip A maximum of 2 extra pages can be purchased for the final version of the accepted papers. Submissions are to be made to the submission web site https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2014 by selecting track "Workshop on Security Assurance in the Cloud". Only pdf files will be accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without consideration of their merits. Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register with the main conference and present the paper. Accepted papers at the workshop will be published in the conference proceedings and in the IEEE digital library. Extended version of selected accepted papers will be considered for publication in a journal special issue (TBC). IWSAC 2014 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS General Chair (SITIS General Chair) * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Chairs * Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Rasool Asal, British Telecommunications, UK/UAE Publicity Chair * Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Web Chair * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Committee * Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany * Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Michele Bezzi, SAP, France * Mauro Conti, University of Padua, Italy * Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA * William M. Fitzgerald, EMC Information Systems International, Ireland * Atsuhiro Goto, Institute of Information Security, Japan * Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany * Patrick Hung, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada * Meiko Jensen, Southern Denmark University, Denmark * Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany * Nicolas Larrieu, ENAC, France * Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain * Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK * George Spanoudakis, City University of London, UK This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be found at http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Sep 29 12:14:13 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:14:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> Message-ID: At 20:30 28/09/2014, Barry Shein wrote: >I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how >it can lead to anything but what I describe. Barry, there is something we need to accept. The interrnet does not belong to everyone: it is everyone. This is why any strategy, behaviour, thinking which considers it as something you can control outside of the others' people accepted social forms of governance (administration, justice, police, society, army, etc. etc.) will technically fail at some stage. People do not want deregulation they want protection of their life, interests, liberty. This means that when the US denigrates "governments", they actually virtually invade their country. They may see it as a "liberation" of the country's people, but the "liberated" people - having this way got the liberty to purchase US goods in US dollars - may not see it that way and retaliate in their own different ways. It seems that for a couple of decades the US should have understood it. Now, the US are not the only would be invaders. Others may also want to politically oppose the US interests in illegitimate manners, and the US have an full legitimacy to counter them or to prevent their agression. This is the normal diplomatic process. The problem is that globalization has raised the physical war threshold and replaced it it by new forms of wars including brain washing, financial crisis, cyberwarfare, cultural influence, righte and duty to intervene, etc. and the time-space relation has made precautionary conterwars something rather new we do not fully understand yet. We have to accept that we are at war. And that this war is rather new because it is global: eveyone is at war with everyone. This war is also rather new because the engaged powers are public, private and civil (some XIIth century kind of warring) with the economical and financial emergence of new kind of sovereignties (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. in our area). It enlists many mercenaries, disembarking the in the meetings (i.e. battles of influence). Etc. IMHO the solution we have is to keep ourselves outside of their global coalitions, actions, battles, etc. and look at our local interests, minding our own business rather than the ones of the big network leaders, and protecting ourselves from their plundering. This is why the VGN notion and management is so important. They keep saying the internet belongs to every of "us" (us bing the "stakeholders"', the net nobility)? Let make it work as being every of us (the network commoners). How that? May be can the techies on the list to join the http://mycann.org effort to discuss the mycann-plug-in. Be you own VGN master or member. Some said "a client not a consumer". Why to waste time and money at attending their meetings instead of spending this time and money at being fee and self-protected ? jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 29 13:36:08 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:36:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <21545.38533.476953.995717@world.std.com> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> <740DD6A1-1A16-4384-9AAF-0C9CE82B8675@hserus.net> <21545.38533.476953.995717@world.std.com> Message-ID: <20140929173608.GA24929@hserus.net> Barry Shein [29/09/14 13:27 -0400]: > >The truth lies somewhere in between. > Obviously, yes. However a nuanced position isn't easy to achieve in this specific discussion. With other parties, elsewhere - sure, definitely. >On September 29, 2014 at 06:50 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > > When you're funded and represent yourself as an independent or as a rep of a civil society group, you do have to draw a "chinese wall" at least, between your funding sources and your opinions. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Mon Sep 29 13:27:33 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:27:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <740DD6A1-1A16-4384-9AAF-0C9CE82B8675@hserus.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net> <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com> <740DD6A1-1A16-4384-9AAF-0C9CE82B8675@hserus.net> Message-ID: <21545.38533.476953.995717@world.std.com> The truth lies somewhere in between. On September 29, 2014 at 06:50 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > When you're funded and represent yourself as an independent or as a rep of a civil society group, you do have to draw a "chinese wall" at least, between your funding sources and your opinions. > > Or if you're there to represent the org that funds you, you need to say so. I hardly ever see employees of registries or registrars claiming that they don't represent and speak for their employers. > > I know several independents who have corporate or industry group funding but still do retain their independence. Parminder appears to be implying that there's no such thing and everybody (except him and a chosen few) are paid stooges of various unnamed corporations. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 29-Sep-2014, at 00:00, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > > > If we just equate funding with funding then, sure, one can make the > > argument that with few exceptions people are funded to participate by > > some method, often other than their own pocket. > > > > I don't know IGF, never been to a meeting. Been to quite a few ICANN > > meetings however. I think it's safe to say many on this list know me, > > in some cases quite well and for many years, decades even. > > > > My take is that this is a misleading equation. > > > > By and large ICANN meetings (and processes) are heavily dominated by > > people representing organizations (companies) with a vested interest > > in the outcome. > > > > Specifically registries, registrars, and people who make their living > > from the same such as the various lawyers and consultants. > > > > To my observation I don't see how you avoid this in a so-called > > multi-stakeholder model. ICANN certainly hasn't, quite the opposite. > > > > Almost the entire working agenda seems to be dominated by > > registry/registrar issues. To the point that even sessions etc which > > might on first glance appear to be focused on other issues in fact are > > dominated by registry/registrar issues. > > > > For example as an ISP I would drop in on the single ISP session to > > find they are primarily (that's a nice way of saying "only") talking > > about issues such as website take-downs for trademark/copyright > > violations. That does affect them but for example what about the > > IPv4/IPv6 transition? Or network neutrality? Or policy issues > > relating to CGN? Security and integrity issues? I don't think I've > > ever seen more than a momentary nod to any of those topics. One > > meeting in Brussels was completely taken up by how to fill in the new > > travel expense forms, or at least I left after 45 minutes of the hour > > devoted to that topic since I don't get travel expenses. > > > > Yes there are a few activities which are exceptions and no doubt in a > > defensive context they would be marched out much like the tardy > > drunken husband showing he did in fact pick up milk & eggs as > > promised. > > > > I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how it > > can lead to anything but what I describe. > > > > I'm sure this won't make me popular in some circles but at some point > > someone has to ask whether they are hallucinating or is the emperor in > > fact naked? > > > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Sep 29 22:22:31 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:22:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online registration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For the next IGF Open Consultation 1-3 December, it looks like registration after Nov 16 is NOT possible online nor onsite. I sent a clarification question to the IGF secretariat. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: 2014-09-29 17:20 GMT+09:00 Subject: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online registration To: MAG-public Dear All, The online registration for the 1-3 December Open Consultations and MAG meetings is now open at : https://intgovforum.org/cms/OCDecember it will close on *15 November*. Please note that onsite registration will *not be possible* this time round due to the large volume of meetings taking place at the same time. Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Sep 30 04:11:47 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:11:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online registration In-Reply-To: References: <007601cfdc84$41834730$c489d590$@unog.ch> Message-ID: Unless you register by Nov 15, you will not be able to participate in the next IGF Open Consultation meeting - Dec 1-3, according to IGF Secretariat. It does not make sense. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2014-09-30 17:09 GMT+09:00 Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online registration To: Chengetai Masango Cc: MAG-public My point is not that participants have 1 1/2 months time, but it goes against our standard practice. And as planned, we will have new MAG members by then, do you think they can register 1 1/2 months in advance? Does it mean that they will be announced well before Nov 15 for sure? Or they got exceptional treatment? I know it is out of your control but rather due to UN/ITU system, but still I remain very doubtful of this arrangement; but let me hear from our respected colleagues. izumi 2014-09-30 16:57 GMT+09:00 Chengetai Masango : > Dear Izumi, > > > > Yes, > > There are quite a number of meetings happening both at UNOG and in the ITU > so advanced preparation is important. > > They would like to get everything set up before their meetings start. > > > > We have to prepare the registrations and send them to the ITU they in turn > have to input them into their system. (They are short staffed) > > > > Participants have a month and half to register which should be ample time… > > > > Best regards, > > > > Chengetai > > > > > > *From:* izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Izumi > AIZU > *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 September 2014 4:19 AM > *To:* Chengetai Masango > *Cc:* MAG-public > *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online > registration > > > > Dear Chengetai, > > > > Thanks for the message below? > > > > BUT, does this mean no one can register after Nov 16? Online nor onsite? > > That is very much troublesome, in my view. > > > > Need clarification. > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > > > 2014-09-29 17:20 GMT+09:00 Chengetai Masango : > > Dear All, > > > > The online registration for the 1-3 December Open Consultations and MAG > meetings is now open at : https://intgovforum.org/cms/OCDecember it will > close on *15 November*. > > > > Please note that onsite registration will *not be possible* this time > round due to the large volume of meetings taking place at the same time. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Chengetai > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 30 16:50:54 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 20:50:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious question for me? Please, I am serious. No one can answer this question because it is based on a false premise. But you provided your own answer anyway: >Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take our > cues from the US, and its political and corporate allies. (Has it > anything to do with from where the money flows?) It is based on a false premise because: Here in the US of A, we are talking about nothing else but a new law and/or regulation on net neutrality, it got 5 million public comments. And the same federal regulatory agency, known as the FCC, has been running a proceeding on the telephony-to-IP transition since January https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf The dialogue you say doesn’t exist is transnational. I was under the impression that there were half a dozen workshops on net neutrality at this year’s IGF. I believe that the topic was debated extensively, if inconclusively, at Netmundial. The European Commission has also been discussing and acting on it. The word “net neutrality” is an American term and the current Presidential administration is on record as supporting it. You probably learned the words “IP transition” from America, too. So explain to me again how the evil empire is preventing everyone from talking about such laws or regulations?? I am serious, or at least as serious as one can be when dealing with outlandish accusations. Is the basis of your political appeal now a shopworn anti-Americanism, rather than a policy agenda that actually makes things better? Keep in mind that “model laws” developed by the UN are significant only insofar as they are adopted by national governments. Which means, they have limited relevance when it comes to global Internet governance issues. As a thought experiment, ask yourself which has had more influence and importance to the future of the Internet: the UNCITRAL model e commerce law? http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html Or the Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, which provided the rationale for ICANN? http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ If the latter proved more influential, is it because the evil empire stopped everyone from talking about the topic and used Jedi mind tricks to force it down our throats? Or was it because a globalized approach proved to be more practical and suitable to the growth of the internet than a fragmented, nation-based approach? If the neoliberal telecom competition and deregulation policies won out in the 1980s and 1990s, was it because of US power, or was it because the policies were fantastically successful at stimulating the growth and penetration of the Internet and information and telecom services and equipment, more so than the 70 years of national monopoly that preceded it, and thus were imitated by country after country? These might be more “serious” and productive questions for people on this list to answer Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t